Official Justice League Status Update Thread

[I Am The Knight]

If they have to recast Batman, just don't recast him with someone like Armmie Hammer. It's simple. Same for Superman. That alone will get a lot of people on board. Then again, this movie is still up in the air, just like MOS, or any other DC movie for that matter :o

EDIT: 4,000 Posts!! Woot!! Read this post WB!

[Showtime]

It depends on who pick up the
story.If something is reported on comics2film, then superherohype, latinoreview and slashfilm, it's bound to appear on every movie site in the world.

For example I hadn't noticed the interview on Newsarama about the Phantom Tv series until it was linked in an Italian website. Now I put it on comics2film and in a couple of days I guess it will pop up in a lot of other sites...

I want to say, that status of JL...this version at least, will finally come to a head very soon.

[bunk]

If they have to recast Batman, just don't recast him with someone like Armmie Hammer. It's simple. Same for Superman. That alone will get a lot of people on board. Then again, this movie is still up in the air, just like MOS, or any other DC movie for that matter :o

EDIT: 4,000 Posts!! Woot!! Read this post WB!

Imo, the GP will see the trailer and be bothered by the fact Superman and Batman aren't either incarnation they've previously seen, and also by not even recognizing the guys playing them. Maybe the movie will look cool as a whole, but people will still think the casting is lame. Not really a good foot to start out on.

[GreenKToo]

If they have to recast Batman, just don't recast him with someone like Armmie Hammer. It's simple. Same for Superman. That alone will get a lot of people on board. Then again, this movie is still up in the air, just like MOS, or any other DC movie for that matter :o

EDIT: 4,000 Posts!! Woot!! Read this post WB!
I agree 110%. Superman, Batman (and to an extent, W.W.) are the most important casting decisions. It can't just be any old actor/actress, unless of course their wanting J.L. to bomb, which I doubt.
The casting choices should make folks excited and eager to see J.L., not make them want to skip it and wait for the DvD.

[I Am The Knight]

Imo, the GP will see the trailer and be bothered by the fact Superman and Batman aren't either incarnation they've previously seen, and also by not even recognizing the guys playing them. Maybe the movie will look cool as a whole, but people will still think the casting is lame. Not really a good foot to start out on.

Perhaps, but this is not World's Finest. The Justice League (if done right) has a lot going for it. It's not only about Supes and Bats. I see your point about recognition, but it could go either way, really. People will either care, or they won't. I'm thinking they won't care...Much :hehe:

[Triple Skeet]

Whether the movie is good or not, it will still make a bundle of cash and thats all it has to do to be deemed a success.

[bunk]

Perhaps, but this is not World's Finest. The Justice League (if done right) has a lot going for it. It's not only about Supes and Bats. I see your point about recognition, but it could go either way, really. People will either care, or they won't. I'm thinking they won't care...Much :hehe:

Of course. I just think it really makes it harder to build anticipation. I hear Aaron Eckhart's name attached to Two-Face and I anticipate it. Ledger attached to Joker got me thinking, though I wasn't excited at first. RDJ with Iron Man, Paltrow as Potts ect. You read that in a magazine, and it's like "ok, I'm going to keep my eye on this". It's something to talk about. You hear Hammer's name with Batman... not really the same effect. I don't see much of a "buzz" happening as early as it did with Iron Man or even something like Star Trek. WB should be going for TDK level hype.

[04nbod]

If they have to recast Batman, just don't recast him with someone like Armmie Hammer. It's simple. Same for Superman. That alone will get a lot of people on board. Then again, this movie is still up in the air, just like MOS, or any other DC movie for that matter :o

EDIT: 4,000 Posts!! Woot!! Read this post WB!


have you seen much of armie hammer's work or are you going by the silly sounding name?:cwink:

[Showtime]

Whether the movie is good or not, it will still make a bundle of cash and thats all it has to do to be deemed a success.

Not necessarily true but a good bet.

[biolumen]

To tell you the truth, I don't thinK George Miller knows much about what is going on anymore...:csad:

I want to say, that status of JL...this version at least, will finally come to a head very soon.

Just speculating, or are we more informed than Miller?

It's 2 weeks post SDCC and still nothing from WB. I'd be surprised to hear anything about anything for some time yet.

[Showtime]

Just speculating, or are we more informed than Miller?[

Depends on what you mean by we and it also depends on the time. Timing is always of the essence.

It's 2 weeks post SDCC and still nothing from WB. I'd be surprised to hear anything about anything for some time yet.

WB isn't talking.

[TheVileOne]

What's hilarious is that everyone assumed that WB was going to make some sort of announcement in San Diego or some events beforehand. With none of that happening.

And they shouldn't. Dark Knight is THE movie of the year right now. Why the hell would WB want to suddenly announce, "Oh we are making new movies starring Batman, but not this Batman which you will have to go see." Would've been stupid. That is if they are still actually planning Justice League without Bale ;) .

[biolumen]

"We" means you, and you lost me on the 'timing' bit.

[biolumen]

What's hilarious is that everyone assumed that WB was going to make some sort of announcement in San Diego or some events beforehand.

People assumed that Warners would follow the same pattern they've shown in the past, releasing information on upcoming plans in the few weeks following SDCC. I suppose there's still time for that to happen.

[Michael Corleone]

What's hilarious is that everyone assumed that WB was going to make some sort of announcement in San Diego or some events beforehand. With none of that happening.

And they shouldn't. Dark Knight is THE movie of the year right now. Why the hell would WB want to suddenly announce, "Oh we are making new movies starring Batman, but not this Batman which you will have to go see." Would've been stupid. That is if they are still actually planning Justice League without Bale ;) .

I don't know if everyone was expecting a comic con announcement. I think people just assumed that because of the "summit" WB had a clearer understanding of what they were going to do and that some sort of information would be born from that.

[Showtime]

What's hilarious is that everyone assumed that WB was going to make some sort of announcement in San Diego or some events beforehand. With none of that happening.


I don't know if everyone was expecting a comic con announcement. I think people just assumed that because of the "summit" WB had a clearer understanding of what they were going to do and that some sort of information would be born from that.

People assumed that Warners would follow the same pattern they've shown in the past, releasing information on upcoming plans in the few weeks following SDCC. I suppose there's still time for that to happen.

I heard previously and believed that they were going to come out with a press release during or just after Comic Con with a slate at hand. I think the Summit actually changed their approach. Now the WB Vault is as tight as ever.

[Showtime]

"We" means you, and you lost me on the 'timing' bit.

Not necessarily me, but others like me.

Timing. Bad timing for George Miller's Justice League. The Strike, Tax Break Issues, Script, Bad Buzz, Dark Knight.

[Dark Knight]

Timing. Bad timing for George Miller's Justice League. The Strike, Tax Break Issues, Script, Bad Buzz, Dark Knight.



Yep....all the signs keep pointing to the negative when it comes to this Miller JLA film. The bad signs are everywhere and are obvious ones.

[Dark Knight]

And they shouldn't. Dark Knight is THE movie of the year right now. Why the hell would WB want to suddenly announce, "Oh we are making new movies starring Batman, but not this Batman which you will have to go see." Would've been stupid.


Yep! It would be beyond moronic and just asinine!

[Evil Twin]

I really don't think WB is planning on announcing anything until after the SAG contract is settled.

I do suspect that Y, the Last Man and Jonah Hex are going to be greenlit soon and that there will be additional superhero movies put in the pipeline, but your guess is as good as mine as to which of Green Lantern, Shazam, Justice League, Superman, Plastic Man, Supermax, or something totally off the board will be first to go.

[TheVileOne]

Iron Man shows that you don't need an Avengers or JL movie to start something like that.

You just need the right movie, and the right release date.

[dnno1]

What's hilarious is that everyone assumed that WB was going to make some sort of announcement in San Diego or some events beforehand. With none of that happening.

I didn't assume that. I already got the message a couple of years ago when they said they wouldn't put out anything unless it was ready.

Why the hell would WB want to suddenly announce, "Oh we are making new movies starring Batman, but not this Batman which you will have to go see."[?]

http://www.kraftfoods.com/assets/images/ocpimages/44000/00820cf.gif

Remember these? When they be came popular they started doing these:

http://www.kraftfoods.com/assets/images/ocpimages/44000/00220cf.gifhttp://www.kraftfoods.com/assets/images/ocpimages/44000/00065cf.gifhttp://www.kraftfoods.com/assets/images/ocpimages/44000/01473CL.GIF
http://www.kraftfoods.com/assets/images/ocpimages/44000/00219cf.gifhttp://www.kraftfoods.com/assets/images/ocpimages/44000/01592cl.gifhttp://www.kraftfoods.com/assets/images/ocpimages/44000/01485CF.GIF

That's called diversifying your product and it increases your sales and that is why you would do that. Basically you are leveraging on the success of your brand. That is a common marketing strategy and business practice. That is why they started announcing other Marvel projects like Thor and Captain America after the success of Iron Man.

[Showtime]

That's called diversifying your product and it increases your sales and that is why you would do that. Basically you are leveraging on the success of your brand. That is a common marketing strategy and business practice. That is why they started announcing other Marvel projects like Thor and Captain America after the success of Iron Man.

The food and beverage market is not the same as characters on film. This is why the examples Maze laid out previously that actually had to do with film were few and far between. You can throw around marketing terms and post pictures of cookies all you want, but it isn't the same.

Also, how is having two versions of Batman on screen at the same time even close to the same as Marvel announcing the launch of different heroes based on the success of Iron Man. By that token, WB should do exactly what you are arguing against, announce other solo films before doing a Justice League. You're killing your own argument.

[BATZARRO WWD]

Auto translated for the spanish-impaired (http://translate.google.com.pr/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://inthenewsworld.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/%25C2%25BFhabra-pelicula-de-la-liga-de-la-justicia/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=4&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522/%25C2%25BFhabra-pelicula-de-la-liga-de-la-justicia/%2522%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3D1B%26sa%3DG)

It states that the original (story) theme has changed. Wether it means the original as in "previous script" or original as in the comics.

[TheVileOne]

Marvel announced movies that will be directly working off of Iron Man and connecting together with each other.

That's the big difference.

[Showtime]

Auto translated for the spanish-impaired (http://translate.google.com.pr/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://inthenewsworld.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/%25C2%25BFhabra-pelicula-de-la-liga-de-la-justicia/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=4&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522/%25C2%25BFhabra-pelicula-de-la-liga-de-la-justicia/%2522%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3D1B%26sa%3DG)

It states that the original (story) theme has changed. Wether it means the original as in "previous script" or original as in the comics.

The Justice League Killer is right.

[dnno1]

The food and beverage market is not the same as characters on film. This is why the examples Maze laid out previously that actually had to do with film were few and far between. You can throw around marketing terms and post pictures of cookies all you want, but it isn't the same.

The product may not the same but the concept is. Product Diversification is irrespective of an industry or a product. Batman is a brand just like Oreos, and it should be exploited and diversified when it is successful.

http://blogs.lubbockonline.com/slemmons/images/Batman675.jpghttp://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/image_cover/DetectiveComics_632_golem.jpghttp://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/thumb/a/a9/All-Star_Batman_and_Robin_7A.jpg/300px-All-Star_Batman_and_Robin_7A.jpghttp://www.coverbrowser.com/image/batman-strikes/23-1.jpghttp://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/thumb/6/64/Batman_Confidential_3.jpg/300px-Batman_Confidential_3.jpghttp://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/thumb/c/c5/Batman_and_the_Outsiders_v.2_1.jpg/300px-Batman_and_the_Outsiders_v.2_1.jpghttp://images.comiccollectorlive.com/27CF9EA1-7C8E-4724-868A-005B93F5C503/75D86C9A-F5F4-45F4-A546-ED2575D0D06A/A4237D3F-885F-4CB3-AD64-6A06750D6F36.jpg

Just like the comcis leverage Batman's success by diversifying the brand with various titles, the same can be done in the film franchise and this would be consistent with the source material.

Also, how is having two versions of Batman on screen at the same time even close to the same as Marvel announcing the launch of different heroes based on the success of Iron Man. By that token, WB should do exactly what you are arguing against, announce other solo films before doing a Justice League. You're killing your own argument.

Technically they wouldn't be at the same time since the release dates will more than likely be in different years. This has been done before (I have proven as much) and it didn't confuse anyone or hurt any franchises. Leveraging Batman's (as well as Superman's) success by exploiting him in other films is the best thing for Batman as well as the other start up franchises.

[Showtime]

The product may not the same but the concept is. Product Diversification does is irrespective of an industry or a product. Batman is a brand just like Oreos, and it should be exploited and diversified when it is successful.

It should be, and is, in all different mediums. Comics, Film, Merchandising, Animated Features & Television...so on and so forth. That doesn't mean that WB has to come out with eleventeen versions of Batman on film because one is a juggernaut.

Just like the comcis leverage Batman's success by diversifying the brand with various titles, the same can be done in the film franchise and this would be consistent with the source material.

Anything can be done, it doesn't mean it should or will.

Technically they wouldn't be at the same time since the release dates will more than likely be in different years. This has been done before (I have proven as much) and it didn't confuse anyone or hurt any franchises. Leveraging Batman's (as well as Superman's) success by exploiting him in other films is the best thing for Batman as well as the other start up franchises.

Tarzan and Bond...yeah...

It is the your opinion that exploiting them in multiple films is the best thing, doesn't mean it is WB's...any more.

It isn't that I don't understand your theory, it's just that I don't agree with it nor do I thinK WB does at this point in time.

[dnno1]

It should be, and is, in all different mediums. Comics, Film, Merchandising, Animated Features & Television...so on and so forth. That doesn't mean that WB has to come out with eleventeen versions of Batman on film because one is a juggernaut.

If they want to please the share holders it would be in their best interest to do that. It would be kind of foolish not to.

Anything can be done, it doesn't mean it should or will.

I don't see a good reason why it shouldn't. It also works the other way in that you can give a weaker brand a chance to survive in another franchise which is what I suspect Marvel will be doing with the Hulk in the future.

Tarzan and Bond...yeah...

It is the your opinion that exploiting them in multiple films is the best thing, doesn't mean it is WB's...any more.

It isn't that I don't understand your theory, it's just that I don't agree with it nor do I thinK WB does at this point in time.

It's based on fact. They have already diversified the brand in other mediums and featuring Batman in the Justice League (among other films) is doing the same thing. It not only finds another niche for the brand but it helps promote other brands as well by exposing Batman fans to other characters. Marvel is already doing it so why not WB?

[FilmNerdJamie]

It's very simple. Do you really think WB is going to risk ****ing up their relationship with Nolan at this point?

I don't care what was said publicly in the past, Nolan (along with the likes of Bale and Charles Roven and the Superman team...among others) was 100% against Justice League from the start. I think some are downplaying how much of a major factor Nolan and the Batman team were in killing JLA at the beginning of 2008.

And now his Batman Begins sequel has exceeded damn-near every expectation by grossing well over $400 million domestic in a little over 3 weeks(!) Add to the fact that he is now a free-agent and can do whatever he wants, where-ever he wants.

There is no way WB is going to want to get on Nolan's bad-side after The Dark Knight becomes the 2nd highest-grossing film of all-time. The studio absolutely wants to keep him there and they badly want Batman III under his direction.

Justice League isn't happening.

[Showtime]

If they want to please the share holders it would be in their best interest to do that. It would be kind of foolish not to.

It's in WB's best interest to come out with eleventeen different versions of Batman, after Nolans version becomes the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time domestically, which will please their shareholders.

:huh:

I don't see a good reason why it shouldn't. It also works the other way in that you can give a weaker brand a chance to survive in another franchise which is what I suspect Marvel will be doing with the Hulk in the future.

I see a good reason why it shouldn't, Dark Knight. Now, so does WB.

It's based on fact. They have already diversified the brand in other mediums and featuring Batman in the Justice League (among other films) is doing the same thing. It not only finds another niche for the brand but it helps promote other brands as well by exposing Batman fans to other characters. Marvel is already doing it so why not WB?

Marvel is doing it by coming out with solo films first leading up to Avengers...I don't understand why you continue to devalue your stance by bringing up the point you are disagreeing with. The only fact right now is Dark Knight is going to be the highest grossing comicbook film of all time.

[Evil Twin]

Marvel is doing it by coming out with solo films first leading up to Avengers...I don't understand why you continue to devalue your stance by bringing up the point you are disagreeing with. The only fact right now is Dark Knight is going to be the highest grossing comicbook film of all time.

One thing we also don't know is whether Marvel's plan will succeed or not. Plenty of movie plans have fallen apart, stalled, been delayed, etc. over the years. For example, what happens if Thor flops? Or Downey Jr. falls off the wagon? It's possible that Marvel's plan may prove to be too ambitious and the easiest way to make a team movie is simply to make a team movie.

[Showtime]

One thing we also don't know is whether Marvel's plan will succeed or not. Plenty of movie plans have fallen apart, stalled, been delayed, etc. over the years. For example, what happens if Thor flops? Or Downey Jr. falls off the wagon? It's possible that Marvel's plan may prove to be too ambitious and the easiest way to make a team movie is simply to make a team movie.

I think you're faced with the same situation though, you're going to recast Iron Man with another actor, instead of Downey? Seems just as ridiculous to me, when he just nailed the role.

It's just as possible that making a team up with B list actors would fail as well ie Justice League, that plan isn't tested either.

[TheVileOne]

Wouldn't a Nolan sequel please shareholders a lot more than JL? Considering the current Nolan movie is the biggest movie of the year, and on its way to being the second biggest of all time?

[The Major]

It's just as possible that making a team up with B list actors would fail as well ie Justice League, that plan isn't tested either.

The JL film isn't filled with B-listers. They have Brody and Common but that's it. The rest are C to D-listers and their WW who wasn't even in their industry until someone approached to do it.

A team of B-listers would be an improvement.

[Showtime]

The JL film isn't filled with B-listers. They have Brody and Common but that's it. The rest are C to D-listers and their WW who wasn't even in their industry until someone approached to do it.

A team of B-listers would be an improvement.

You're saying Common and Brody are B-Listers right? I hope.

I liked Common and Broddy actually, and to tell you the truth, Arnie Hammer grew on me.

[Showtime]

Wouldn't a Nolan sequel please shareholders a lot more than JL? Considering the current Nolan movie is the biggest movie of the year, and on its way to being the second biggest of all time?

No Vile, they have to make Justice League. They just have to.

[bunk]

You're saying Common and Brody are B-Listers right? I hope.

I liked Common and Broddy actually, and to tell you the truth, Arnie Hammer grew on me.

Tell him to knock it off then. Isn't he already like 8 feet tall?

[The Major]

You're saying Common and Brody are B-Listers right? I hope.

Yeah.

I liked Common and Broddy actually, and to tell you the truth,

Same here.

Arnie Hammer grew on me.

Have you seen him in anything?

[Showtime]

Tell him to knock it off then. Isn't he already like 8 feet tall?

HA! Good one.



Have you seen him in anything?

No I meant his look. I honestly think he could pull off Supes or Bats. No clue about his acting ability, therefore I can judge it either way.

[darthhalen]

Wow, people have really grabbed on to this quote by miller. It even got me paying attention again. Personally I REALLY still want a JLA movie sooner rather than later and feel the group picture before solo movies is the best way to go. HOWEVER, there is no way that Batman is recast for this film until a third Nolan film is out. Come now, let's be serious. If we think about it logically NO WAY does WB mess with Batman now.
So how serious is WB about getting a JLA movie out? I still feel they are very serious, but will have to make major changes. Personally I think replacing Bats with Green Arrow in the first JLA movie and BEGGING Nolan and Bale to do a cameo as Batman with a scene between Supes and WW might work.
Unfortunately, WB will not win either way. If they recast Batman scores of fans will go ape****. On the other hand NOT having Batman in a JLA movie will cause mass hysteria. I'm a life long fan of comics and would personally not care if Batman were not in the first movie. Wait until Nolans trilogy is over and use him in a JLA sequel. Fans ***** about waiting years for a JLA movie, can they not wait a few years for Batman in JLA as well?

[jmc]

There's nothing wrong with waiting a few years to get a JL film, the characters aren't going anywhere, but DC fans are just impatient.

[Antonello Blueberry]

Wouldn't a Nolan sequel please shareholders a lot more than JL? Considering the current Nolan movie is the biggest movie of the year, and on its way to being the second biggest of all time?
Sure, a Nolan sequel would please the shareholders. Can he do one every year for the next decade? Because at Warners they're out of harry Potter books and need new successful franchises.

[Showtime]

No JMC, it has to be done.

[The Major]

Fans ***** about waiting years for a JLA movie, can they not wait a few years for Batman in JLA as well?

They should just focus on the solo films until Nolan's off Batman then do JL. They don't need to connect them to JL.

Justice League's always going to be around. It can't wait.

They need to sort out Superman, too. If they can't use Batman he's just a big a draw on his own. He suits JL more then Batman, as well.

[Showtime]

Sure, a Nolan sequel would please the shareholders. Can he do one avery year for the next decade? Because at Warners they're out of harry Potter books and need new successful franchises.

WB doesn't need an abundance of comic book properties for tentpole films, they have other options. That is why they bought up about ten or so book properties in the past couple years. They are looking for their next Harry Potter there.

[bunk]

I'm actually really surprised they aren't going after Teen Titans first and foremost. Seems like more of a typical choice for a studio.

[Showtime]

I'm actually really surprised they aren't going after Teen Titans first and foremost. Seems like more of a typical choice for a studio.

Scripting. :csad:

[Dark Knight]

I'm actually really surprised they aren't going after Teen Titans first and foremost. Seems like more of a typical choice for a studio.



When it comes to Teen Titans the way to go with that property is doing a MOCAP or CGI film.

[GreenKToo]

*IF* they could talk Nolan and Bale into doing a cameo in J.L., kool.
If not, then so be it.
Truth is, I'm kinda doubting we get anything other than Bat films for a while yet. We'll see.

[dnno1]

It's in WB's best interest to come out with eleventeen different versions of Batman, after Nolans version becomes the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time domestically, which will please their shareholders.

:huh:

Yes. Batman sells so lets try and exploit the brand as much as we can (whatever the market will bear).

I see a good reason why it shouldn't, Dark Knight. Now, so does WB.

That's not a good reason (if it even was). The success of Dark Knight should be a sign that you can take the brand and make it very successful. Diversifying it will only expand its market size and revenue intake. Stopping there would be kind of narrow minded.

Marvel is doing it by coming out with solo films first leading up to Avengers...I don't understand why you continue to devalue your stance by bringing up the point you are disagreeing with. The only fact right now is Dark Knight is going to be the highest grossing comic book film of all time.

Iron Man had Nick Fury (a character from another brand) make a cameo appearance in it. "The Incredible Hulk" had an cameo appearance from Tony Stark (the alter ego of Iron man - a different brand). You can technically argue that these films were not entirely solos and definitely not say that what was done served to hurt these films. The Justice League brand is just a collage of the different brands of the DC universe. I has been very successful as a comic book/graphic novel, with several titles in publication and has had successful runs on television as an animated series. Having a Justice League film with the multiple brands in it should be no different than what Marvel has done with Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and X-Men in my book and the whole solo films first argument doesn't hold water in my book.

[bunk]

Scripting. :csad:

Oh...not good, I take it?

It's actually not a bad move. They've got the cartoon fan base. You've got Robin for the lead who's a brand name. They can leave the "adults" out of it, so as not to complicate things. And you know they've been dying to pull the trigger on that "teenie bopper" gun.

[Showtime]

Yes. Batman sells so lets try and exploit the brand as much as we can (whatever the market will bear).

That was their original contention, it didn't work, so now they have changed their mind. So they aren't going to make 10 Batman movies at once. Sorry.



That's not a good reason (if it even was). The success of Dark Knight should be a sign that you can take the brand and make it very successful. Diversifying it will only expand its market size and revenue intake. Stopping there would be kind of narrow minded.


Narrow minded according to Dnno1, not a good reason according to Dnno1. WB obviously thinks doing a Justice League now is narrow minded and that Dark Knight is a good reason not to do one...hence why they have changed their minds after the movie they call Dark Knight performed so well.

Iron Man had Nick Fury (a character from another brand) make a cameo appearance in it. "The Incredible Hulk" had an cameo appearance from Tony Stark (the alter ego of Iron man - a different brand). You can technically argue that these films were not entirely solos and definitely not say that what was done served to hurt these films. The Justice League brand is just a collage of the different brands of the DC universe. I has been very successful as a comic book/graphic novel, with several titles in publication and has had successful runs on television as an animated series. Having a Justice League film with the multiple brands in it should be no different than what Marvel has done with Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and X-Men in my book and the whole solo films first argument doesn't hold water in my book.

Having a Justice League film sure will be successful, I'm not arguing that. I am arguing that George Miller's Justice League film isn't going to happen because of Dark Knight. A JL film sure will happen down the line, just not George Miller's version. That is what I am arguing. I thought that was pretty clear.

Cameos do not make a film, non solo. They mentioned Gotham and a a Clown Massacre in Superman Returns, according to Dnno1's theory that means "technically" it is "World's Finest".

Your comparisons are hilarious bud. Did another Iron Man show up in Iron Man? Another Hulk show up in Hulk? What does this have two do with having to film versions of Batman gliding around at the same time?

[The Major]

The success of Dark Knight should be a sign that you can take the brand and make it very successful.

Many, many films have done that before TDK.

Diversifying it will only expand its market size and revenue intake. Stopping there would be kind of narrow minded.

Isn't this how we got Robocop 3 and Batman & Robin?

[dnno1]

It's very simple. Do you really think WB is going to risk ****ing up their relationship with Nolan at this point?

For money yes. There are other directors who have done just as well has he is doing now that they could easily hire to helm the franchise. If you can remember they did that with Richard Donner way back when. BTW you should wait until the Oscar is in his hands before you ask that question.

I don't care what was said publicly in the past, Nolan (along with the likes of Bale and Charles Roven and the Superman team...among others) was 100% against Justice League from the start. I think some are downplaying how much of a major factor Nolan and the Batman team were in killing JLA at the beginning of 2008.

I believe that and it was for their own (in some ways selfish) reasons. You make it look like the WB is afraid of Nolan when they have an major motion picture studio to worry about. Like I said before he can be replaced. I am sure there are a lot of directors who would leap for the chance at helming the Batman franchise (Sam Rami for one) and would definitely try to outdo what Nolan has done for it.

[dnno1]

Isn't this how we got Robocop 3 and Batman & Robin?

And the same thing could happen to a third Nolan film. Diversifying in the instance that if have been arguing is by repackaging the character and featuring him in other franchises (not necessarily within the same franchise).

[FilmNerdJamie]

For money yes. There are other directors who have done just as well has he is doing now that they could easily hire to helm the franchise. If you can remember they did that with Richard Donner way back when. BTW you should wait until the Oscar is in his hands before you ask that question.

I believe that and it was for their own (in some ways selfish) reasons. You make it look like the WB is afraid of Nolan when the have an major motion picture studio to worry about. Like I said before he can be replaced. I am sure there are a lot of directors who would leap for the chance at helming the Batman franchise (Sam Rami for one) and would definitely try to outdo what Nolan has done for it.

Dude...you seriously don't know what you're talking about. Do yourself a favor. Stop.

[The Major]

And the same thing could happen to a third Nolan film.

Given how many film franchises self destruct in similar ways on their third movie hopefully Nolan has enough control not to let that happen to Batman.

Diversifying in the instance that if have been arguing is by repackaging the character and featuring him in other franchises (not necessarily within the same franchise).

Okay.

[bunk]

The thing is, you can't just up and replace Nolan. The actors will have a sense of loyalty to him at this point. Obviously, replacing actors is not something you want to do before making a sequel to one of the biggest movies ever.

[Showtime]

Like I said before he can be replaced. I am sure there are a lot of directors who would leap for the chance at helming the Batman franchise (Sam Rami for one) and would definitely try to outdo what Nolan has done for it.

Sam Raimi, you mean the director who made Spiderman. The franchise that Nolan and Dark Knight just swooped past and is now looking at in the rearview mirror...

[Evil Twin]

While I don't want to advocate for a movie that we know very little about and I expect to be recast if it moves forward at all, I do think it's relevant to point out that the franchise "Justice League" has nearly a 50 year history and is as well established and famous as any team concept to the mainstream.

I also think that anyone that doesn't understand that these are actors portraying fictional characters is either mentally under 12 or needs serious psychiatric help. People don't mentally collapse when they head home from TDK and see Adam West, Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, or George Clooney as Batman. (O.k. maybe the latter due to the awfulness of Batman and Robin.) Any more than they collapse when someone takes over as the next James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Superman, Dracula, Hamlet, Robin Hood, etc.

What I do think matters is that if there's another Batman on film is that someone as credible as Christian Bale is hired to portray him to make it look legitimate and not like a cash in. You don't necessarily need an A-lister, but going with an unknown is just going to draw skepticism. George Lazenby is probably the most famous example of an unknown being met with extreme resistance.

[Showtime]

The thing is, you can't just up and replace Nolan. The actors will have a sense of loyalty to him at this point. Obviously, replacing actors is not something you want to do before making a sequel to one of the biggest movies ever.

No. You can. You can replace Bale and you can replace Nolan, and it will be better then Dark Knight. You can.

[The Major]

Bunk:

Nolan's brother might walk, too.

Not sure about Goyer.

Evil:

Many characters in JL the audience barely know exist. They are not as recognizable or know the basics like Batman or Superman. A JL film would define these characters for generations to the public and Hollywood itself.

[dnno1]

That was their original contention, it didn't work, so now they have changed their mind. So they aren't going to make 10 Batman movies at once. Sorry.

I am sorry, but they have never made or panned to have 10 Batman films at once. What an erroneous statement.

Narrow minded according to Dnno1, not a good reason according to Dnno1. WB obviously thinks doing a Justice League now is narrow minded and that Dark Knight is a good reason not to do one...hence why they have changed their minds after the movie they call Dark Knight performed so well.

Want to take a vote on that to see how many others agree with that? Better yet, why not send that as a question to the execs at the WB?

Having a Justice League film sure will be successful, I'm not arguing that. I am arguing that George Miller's Justice League film isn't going to happen because of Dark Knight. A JL film sure will happen down the line, just not George Miller's version. That is what I am arguing. I thought that was pretty clear.

I think you argument was that "the food and beverage market is not the same as characters on film" and I was saying that the concept of diversifying a product is similar in all of these industries. It was my response to a question TheVileOne asked that you decided to put your two cents into. I don't know what George Miller has to do with this argument.

Cameos do not make a film, non solo. They mentioned Gotham and a a Clown Massacre in Superman Returns, according to Dnno1's theory that means "technically" it is "World's Finest".

No, I didn't say that. I said technically you could argue that it is not a solo film -- and references to places and things in another franchise only makes the connection that they are in the same universe. It is not quite the same as the physical appearance of a character from another franchise.

Your comparisons are hilarious bud. Did another Iron Man show up in Iron Man? Another Hulk show up in Hulk? What does this have two do with having to film versions of Batman gliding around at the same time?

Actually it's your justifications for why there shouldn't be different actors playing the role and different interpretations of Batman that are. There is not real basis for it,

[BATZARRO WWD]

It's very simple. Do you really think WB is going to risk ****ing up their relationship with Nolan at this point?

I don't care what was said publicly in the past, Nolan (along with the likes of Bale and Charles Roven and the Superman team...among others) was 100% against Justice League from the start. I think some are downplaying how much of a major factor Nolan and the Batman team were in killing JLA at the beginning of 2008.

And now his Batman Begins sequel has exceeded damn-near every expectation by grossing well over $400 million domestic in a little over 3 weeks(!) Add to the fact that he is now a free-agent and can do whatever he wants, where-ever he wants.

There is no way WB is going to want to get on Nolan's bad-side after The Dark Knight becomes the 2nd highest-grossing film of all-time. The studio absolutely wants to keep him there and they badly want Batman III under his direction.

Justice League isn't happening.

Yeah, when I met Nolan the other day he was just STEAMING about Justice League. I mean JUMPING MAD! He was running around , asking execs to kill JLA. When did you meet him, by the way? I saw him around Smarch...

Now come on. Do you really REALLY think Cristopher Nolan has nothing better to do than to have movies cancelled? Huh? Does it work like that in your mind? I mean, the movie got as far as preproduction, if he'd cared so much about it he might have killed it at script phase? Plus, is he so much of a child that he'd quit making a movie he was planning just because of that? I'd wager not!

And then you don't care what he said on the past? What? So now you know more about what Nolan knows than he himself?

All in all, pure, distilled conjecture and speculation.

[bunk]

WB should just settle it with a cage match between Miller and Nolan.

This Sunday.... the man who loves penguins.....against the man who has something against The Penguin.... fight to the death!!

[dnno1]

Given how many film franchises self destruct in similar ways on their third movie hopefully Nolan has enough control not to let that happen to Batman.

He just better make sure he doesn't run out of money before the film is finished.

[dnno1]

Sam Raimi, you mean the director who made Spiderman. The franchise that Nolan and Dark Knight just swooped past and is now looking at in the rearview mirror...

Yes. You know he wanted to do the Batman films before they gave it to Tim Burton didn't you?

[Showtime]

Yeah, when I met Nolan the other day he was just STEAMING about Justice League. I mean JUMPING MAD! He was running around , asking execs to kill JLA. When did you meet him, by the way? I saw him around Smarch...

Now come on. Do you really REALLY think Cristopher Nolan has nothing better to do than to have movies cancelled? Huh? Does it work like that in your mind? I mean, the movie got as far as preproduction, if he'd cared so much about it he might have killed it at script phase? Plus, is he so much of a child that he'd quit making a movie he was planning just because of that? I'd wager not!

And then you don't care what he said on the past? What? So now you know more about what Nolan knows than he himself?

All in all, pure, distilled conjecture and speculation.

Yeah...I'm pretty sure Nolan was all tickled pink and what not about WB trying to get another Batman in production while he was still working on Dark Knight. He probably asked if he could hold Miller's megaphone and everything.

[Showtime]

Yes. You know he wanted to do the Batman films before they gave it to Tim Burton didn't you?

Yes? Why does Sam Raimi wanting to do Batman translate into he would do it better then Nolan...

[dnno1]

Dude...you seriously don't know what you're talking about. Do yourself a favor. Stop.

I won't take you seriously on that comment.

[dnno1]

Yes? Why does Sam Raimi wanting to do Batman translate into he would do it better then Nolan...

He's just an example of a director who wouldn't mind doing a Batman film. You never know. He could make a good film. He certainly did it with 3 Spider Man films.

[bunk]

2 Spider Man films.

[FilmNerdJamie]

I won't take you seriously on that comment.

It's your call...but you should. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Showtime]

I am sorry, but they have never made or panned to have 10 Batman films at once. What an erroneous statement.

Well they aren't even going to have two, which is much less then ten, but only a little less then the amount you want.

Want to take a vote on that to see how many others agree with that? Better yet, why not send that as a question to the execs at the WB?

I won't have to send anything to WB, you'll be hearing about how George Miller's Justice League isn't happening quite soon actually. Which is what I've been trying to tell you for page after page.

I think you argument was that "the food and beverage market is not the same as characters on film" and I was saying that the concept of diversifying a product is similar in all of these industries. It was my response to a question TheVileOne asked that you decided to put your two cents into. I don't know what George Miller has to do with this argument.

Which it isn't. Since there are a multitude of examples of diversification in the food industry and a handful in the movie industry in regards to multiple versions of the same character within a close time frame...I fail to see any connection at all.

George Miller has everything to do with this? You are saying you want George Miller's Justice League to happen at the same time another Batman has been uber succesful and I am saying it isn't going to happen and it shouldn't. How is he not relevant?

No, I didn't say that. I said technically you could argue that it is not a solo film -- and references to places and things in another franchise only makes the connection that they are in the same universe. It is not quite the same as the physical appearance of a character from another franchise.

You can't argue that it isn't a solo film. The film titled Iron Man features a character named Iron Man in the lead. Same It isn't "Iron Man & A Nick Fury Cameo"

Actually it's your justifications for why there shouldn't be different actors playing the role and different interpretations of Batman that are. There is not real basis for it,

Right. The basis for my arguments should be cookies representing characters on film and 9-14 year olds as representation of the general public.

[Showtime]

He's just an example of a director who wouldn't mind doing a Batman film. You never know. He could make a good film. He certainly did it with 3 Spider Man films.

That is up for debate, I think he did incredible with the first two films, not so much the 3rd. That being said, Nolan just surpassed all of them with Dark Knight. Maybe Raimi should do a 4th and see if he can beat Dark Knight.

[BATZARRO WWD]

I don't know. Maybe Warner ISN'T “ looking at how best to exploit the DC Comics characters and properties.”...right?

[Showtime]

I don't know. Maybe Warner ISN'T “ looking at how best to exploit the DC Comics characters and properties.”...right?

Of course they are, thats why they won't be doing George Miller's version of JL?

[Evil Twin]

Evil:

Many characters in JL the audience barely know exist. They are not as recognizable or know the basics like Batman or Superman. A JL film would define these characters for generations for the public and Hollywood itself.

The general public really is only unaware of Martian Manhunter, who's about as unlikely as any superhero to get a movie series, and Green Lantern. Four of the rest have had major television series/movies and Aquaman is well known, even if it's only due to Super Friends.

A JL film helping define these characters is only a bad thing if it's not a quality movie. And, IMO, we don't know enough specifics to answer that question. X-Men is leading to at least one solo movie, so there's evidence of that model working.

To me, JL is an easy sell. The World's Greatest Heroes team up. You can add "From the Award Winning Director of Mad Max" as a credibility enhancer too. And considering Brandon Routh and Tom Welling are, at best, B-listers, there's really only Batman to compete with from a credibility point of view. What you need to make JL work is to be able to sell it as an equal, but alternate, take on the characters that already have franchises.

FWIW, I doubt Christopher Nolan is going to walk away from Batman due to a JLA movie. He can probably name his terms and WB will meet them. But, no executive is going to let some director that doesn't have to answer to stockholders tell them what movies to greenlight or not greenlight. They may seek compromise and accomodation, but they won't capituate authority. Now, they may kill JL for other reasons, including concerns about audience confusion/acceptance in the market place/better alternatives, but they won't let a director dictate to them on their feature slate.

Edit: A complicating factor may be Christian Bale's contract. As far as I know, he, Oldman, and Caine are already committed to three Batman films and Christopher Nolan may not want to abandon them.

[Showtime]

So let me get this straight, a lot of people are taking comments from Gale and Miller as gospel that JL is happening, but they are throwing out the comments that involve WB trying to appease Bale and Nolan and "get them on board." Seems pretty selective to me.

[Michael Corleone]

So let me get this straight, a lot of people are taking comments from Gale and Miller as gospel that JL is happening, but they are throwing out the comments that involve WB trying to appease Bale and Nolan and "get them on board." Seems pretty selective to me.


Once people are convinced of something, they will resist any information to the contrary. It's an evolutionary fact. :woot:

[dnno1]

That is up for debate, I think he did incredible with the first two films, not so much the 3rd. That being said, Nolan just surpassed all of them with Dark Knight. Maybe Raimi should do a 4th and see if he can beat Dark Knight.

The way I look at it is that all three films made astronomical amounts of money (more than $700 million) and the last film in the series made the most ($891 million - Spider-Man 2 made the least yet it won an Oscar). This tells me that-many more movie goers when to see that film than the rest making it the most popular. I could care less how you felt about the film or any of the others. No film makes that much money unless it was great (not just good).

[The Major]

The general public really is only unaware of Martian Manhunter, who's about as unlikely as any superhero to get a movie series, and Green Lantern.

Okay.

Four of the rest have had major television series/movies

Do you mean Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and Flash?

and Aquaman is well known, even if it's only due to Super Friends.

Aquaman never recovered from Super Friends.

Hollywood will only make it worse if they make a comedy film with it. :(

A JL film helping define these characters is only a bad thing if it's not a quality movie. And, IMO, we don't know enough specifics to answer that question.

Whether JL is good or not the movie will be the first time most of these characters have gotten exposure of that level.

X-Men is leading to at least one solo movie, so there's evidence of that model working.

The X-men were always a team from the start. It's the exact opposite concept to JL. Most of them don't have complicate origins or separate mythos anywhere near as dense as some of the Justice League members.

To me, JL is an easy sell. The World's Greatest Heroes team up. You can add "From the Award Winning Director of Mad Max" as a credibility enhancer too. And considering Brandon Routh and Tom Welling are, at best, B-listers, there's really only Batman to compete with from a credibility point of view. What you need to make JL work is to be able to sell it as an equal, but alternate, take on the characters that already have franchises.

Agreed.

FWIW, I doubt Christopher Nolan is going to walk away from Batman due to a JLA movie. He can probably name his terms and WB will meet them. But, no executive is going to let some director that doesn't have to answer to stockholders tell them what movies to greenlight or not greenlight. They may seek compromise and accomodation, but they won't capituate authority. Now, they may kill JL for other reasons, including concerns about audience confusion/acceptance in the market place/better alternatives, but they won't let a director dictate to them on their feature slate.

Okay.

Edit: A complicating factor may be Christian Bale's contract. As far as I know, he, Oldman, and Caine are already committed to three Batman films and Christopher Nolan may not want to abandon them.

Have actors gotten out of contracts like this before?

No film makes that much money unless it was great (not just good).

Tranformers sure was the critics darling when it came out. :D

[Hunter Rider]

The way I look at it is that all three films made astronomical amounts of money (more than $700 million) and the last film in the series made the most ($891 million - Spider-Man 2 made the least yet it won an Oscar). This tells me that-many more movie goers when to see that film than the rest making it the most popular. I could care less how you felt about the film or any of the others. No film makes that much money unless it was great (not just good).

So huge box office = great movie ?

[Dark Knight]

It's very simple. Do you really think WB is going to risk ****ing up their relationship with Nolan at this point?

I don't care what was said publicly in the past, Nolan (along with the likes of Bale and Charles Roven and the Superman team...among others) was 100% against Justice League from the start. I think some are downplaying how much of a major factor Nolan and the Batman team were in killing JLA at the beginning of 2008.

And now his Batman Begins sequel has exceeded damn-near every expectation by grossing well over $400 million domestic in a little over 3 weeks(!) Add to the fact that he is now a free-agent and can do whatever he wants, where-ever he wants.

There is no way WB is going to want to get on Nolan's bad-side after The Dark Knight becomes the 2nd highest-grossing film of all-time. The studio absolutely wants to keep him there and they badly want Batman III under his direction.

Justice League isn't happening.



Yep. WB's would be absolute LUNATICS if they rocked the boat with a talent like Nolan.

[TheVileOne]

I guess Blade Runner and some other movies that don't make any money must suck then, if movies can only be considered great by making the most money.

Dnno1's responses are now borderline on troll territory.

[Evil Twin]

So let me get this straight, a lot of people are taking comments from Gale and Miller as gospel that JL is happening, but they are throwing out the comments that involve WB trying to appease Bale and Nolan and "get them on board." Seems pretty selective to me.

I'm not taking anything as gospel. But I am suggesting that 1) WB doesn't have to appease Bale, he's under contract and 2) giving a director control over their slate is a bad precedent for any studio executive to consider. For all we know, Nolan was already appeased and JL was spiked solely due to budget/tax rebate and script concerns. Heck, for all we know Nolan is merely using JL as a means to get a pet project of his greenlit.

I'm doubtful that JL will move forward for a variety of reasons, but George Miller is a director with clout and the only one that's publicly talking about the project at all when it would be very easy for him to move on. Why shouldn't we take Miller at his public word over unsourced rumors?

I do think there's a juicy story to be told here which I don't think internet sites have really done a good job with. It's all the ingredients of an exciting novel with plot twists galore, competing personalities, politics, labor management disputes, and the wild card of fickle internet fandom.

[Showtime]

The way I look at it is that all three films made astronomical amounts of money (more than $700 million) and the last film in the series made the most ($891 million - Spider-Man 2 made the least yet it won an Oscar). This tells me that-many more movie goers when to see that film than the rest making it the most popular. I could care less how you felt about the film or any of the others. No film makes that much money unless it was great (not just good).

Now you get it. Finally!

Dark Knight is going to make over 700 Million WW easily, and is going to at least approach 891 Million WW. As you said, "no film makes that amount of money unless its great."

In conclusion, since Dark Knight is going to be the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time, the highest grossing comicbook movie of all time, and by your own analysis...it is great....

Then there would be no reason to mess with that by putting Arnie Hammer in a Batman suit on screen.

I'd like to thank you all for your time.

[The Major]

Yep. WB's would be absolute lunatics if they rocked the boat with a talent like Nolan.

Stranger things have happened.

[Showtime]

I'm not taking anything as gospel. But I am suggesting that 1) WB doesn't have to appease Bale, he's under contract and 2) giving a director control over their slate is a bad precedent for any studio executive to consider. For all we know, Nolan was already appeased and JL was spiked solely due to budget/tax rebate and script concerns. Heck, for all we know Nolan is merely using JL as a means to get a pet project of his greenlit.

All very valid points. I am saying that Nolan/Bale were a small part of the "Bad Break" pie for George Miller's JL.

I'm doubtful that JL will move forward for a variety of reasons, but George Miller is a director with clout and the only one that's publicly talking about the project at all when it would be very easy for him to move on. Why shouldn't we take Miller at his public word over unsourced rumors?

Bryan Singer is also a director with a lot of clout. He has said the Superman sequel is happening a large number of times. Also, Miller has clout, but not as much clout as Nolan has with WB right now.

I do think there's a juicy story to be told here which I don't think internet sites have really done a good job with. It's all the ingredients of an exciting novel with plot twists galore, competing personalities, politics, labor management disputes, and the wild card of fickle internet fandom.

A sequel to that Superman book.

[Evil Twin]

The X-men were always a team from the start. It's the exact opposite concept to JL. Most of them don't have complicate origins or separate mythos anywhere near as dense as some of the Justice League members.

Yeah, but for the most part, their origins aren't relevant to a JL film. What they can do, what their personalities are, are more relevant.

Heck, a dossier page on a computer screen might be easy enough to do, especially since Batman and Max Lord are probably both spying on the rest. Flash - super speed due to exposure to lightning and chemicals. Martian Manhunter - alien teleported to Earth. Strength, invisibility, shapeshifting, telepathy. Green Lantern - wields the power ring of an intergalactic police force. Aquaman - Atlantean. etc.

[Dark Knight]

Wouldn't a Nolan sequel please shareholders a lot more than JL? Considering the current Nolan movie is the biggest movie of the year, and on its way to being the second biggest of all time?


Exactly....but some people just don't get it and they never will.

dnno1 must be a buddy of one the warped decision makers over there at WB's. There are good decision makers over there at WB's, but there sure are a handful of bad ones with bad ideas at that studio.

[The Major]

Yeah, but for the most part, their origins aren't relevant to a JL film. What they can do, what their personalities are, are more relevant.

Heck, a dossier page on a computer screen might be easy enough to do, especially since Batman and Max Lord are probably both spying on the rest. Flash - super speed due to exposure to lightning and chemicals. Martian Manhunter - alien teleported to Earth. Strength, invisibility, shapeshifting, telepathy. Green Lantern - wields the power ring of an intergalactic police force. Aquaman - Atlantean. etc.

That's true.

[Dark Knight]

Stranger things have happened.


True....:o

[TheVileOne]

Considering what Nolan's done for WB, appeasing him and making him happy is exactly what they should be doing. Because that makes them money.

Also people seem to have this weird idea that JL is like the saviour project of WB and is going to be the biggest movie ever.

Again . . . The Dark Knight.

Also again:

The Dark Knight, Nolan, and Bale > dumb Miller JL idea.

[BATZARRO WWD]

Apeasing him is one thing, but I think Hollywood ussually does that with money, booze/drugs and/or whores.

[Showtime]

Apeasing him is one thing, but I think Hollywood ussually does that with money, booze/drugs and/or whores.

I can't argue that.

[Dark Knight]

Now you get it. Finally!

Dark Knight is going to make over 700 Million WW easily, and is going to at least approach 891 Million WW. As you said, "no film makes that amount of money unless its great."

In conclusion, since Dark Knight is going to be the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time, the highest grossing comicbook movie of all time, and by your own analysis...it is great....

Then there would be no reason to mess with that by putting Arnie Hammer in a Batman suit on screen.

I'd like to thank you all for your time.



YES!

"Lets put an end to this destructive conflict"

-Lord Vader-Empire Strikes Back

[Showtime]

So huge box office = great movie ?

Yes! Didn't you see X3 and Spiderman 3? :csad:

[Evil Twin]

Bryan Singer is also a director with a lot of clout. He has said the Superman sequel is happening a large number of times. Also, Miller has clout, but not as much clout as Nolan has with WB right now.

True. But Miller's last picture for WB was an overwhelming success, financially and won a pretty substantial award. He may not have as much clout as Nolan, but he probably has more clout than Singer right now. Especially since the buzz on Valkyrie isn't particularly good. What's Singer going to do if WB doesn't greenlight the next Superman movie? Miller has more leverage with a very successful movie to pitch a sequel too. And Miller probably does have the rights.

And, we really don't know if Nolan wants to use his clout against another director or wants to direct it in a way that's more beneficial to him. Heck, for all we know Miller and Nolan have already worked out a compromise.

That said, it's also possible that WB will simply exchange a greenlight on the next Mad Max movie for Justice League and all parties will go away happy.

[bunk]

What is with that third movie? Maybe Nolan should just skip to 4.

[Showtime]

True. But Miller's last picture for WB was an overwhelming success, financially and won a pretty substantial award. He may not have as much clout as Nolan, but he probably has more clout than Singer right now. Especially since the buzz on Valkyrie isn't particularly good. What's Singer going to do if WB doesn't greenlight the next Superman movie? Miller has more leverage with a very successful movie to pitch a sequel too. And Miller probably does have the rights.

No doubt about it in regards to Happy Feet, but I'd be interested in who owns the rights to Happy Feet. He might have more clout then Singer, but Singer is still working with WB even if he isn't directing the sequel. See his upcoming projects.

And, we really don't know if Nolan wants to use his clout against another director or wants to direct it in a way that's more beneficial to him. Heck, for all we know Miller and Nolan have already worked out a compromise.

He had a small piece in the demise of it the first time around, just by voicing his displeasure.

That said, it's also possible that WB will simply exchange a greenlight on the next Mad Max movie for Justice League and all parties will go away happy.

Maybe.

[The Major]

What is with that third movie?

From my outsiders point of view its like the studio's just forget quality and go for the lowest common denominator on successful franchises. Thank god LOTR didn't do this.

They lose sight of what made the franchise so good in the first place.

What's odd is how different studios act similarly with different franchises.

They seem to kill the golden goose willingly.

Maybe Nolan should just skip to 4.

:D

[GreenKToo]

Heh. This is getting good.

[KBX]

Any guesses what the rewrites that supposedly took place were?

[Michael Corleone]

Heh. This is getting good.

It's like the calm before the storm...cept different :dry::D

[dnno1]

So huge box office = great movie ?

That's what the suits at the studio are going to tell you. The will even be interested in making follow on films. That's because it is paying for itself and then some.

[dnno1]

Tranformers sure was the critics darling when it came out. :D

You don't make films to please the critics. You make it for the enjoyment of the audience. They are the ones who are paying for it.

[Michael Corleone]

You don't make films to please the critics. You make it for the enjoyment of the audience. They are the ones who are paying for it.

Some like to do both.

[The Major]

You don't make films to please the critics. You make it for the enjoyment of the audience.

Amongst the public the film was divided at best.

They are the ones who are paying for it.

They aren't the only people who paid to see it. People who loathed it did, too.

[darthhalen]

Can someone tell me why WB can't make a JLA movie without Batman? Why the hell not? Use six of the major seven with a small cameo by Batman. This connects the universes but does not tread on Batman and Nolan. See! Everybody Happy! Just put Batman in JLA 2 with a huge role after BatNolan 3. Oh yeah, you could even have Miller direct the movie!!
Seriously, can someone tell me why this is not a viable option. WB can have there cake and eat it too.

[Hunter Rider]

That's what the suits at the studio are going to tell you. The will even be interested in making follow on films. That's because it is paying for itself and then some.

I wasn't asking the studios though.

[KBX]

Why is everyone comparing the possible JL movie to the TDK? JL at best is coming 2 years from now, if ever. If anything compare it to the 3rd batman movie, if there is one.

[GreenKToo]

Can someone tell me why WB can't make a JLA movie without Batman? Why the hell not? Use six of the major seven with a small cameo by Batman. This connects the universes but does not tread on Batman and Nolan. See! Everybody Happy! Just put Batman in JLA 2 with a huge role after BatNolan 3. Oh yeah, you could even have Miller direct the movie!!
Seriously, can someone tell me why this is not a viable option. WB can have there cake and eat it too.
I think it would work quite well. I doubt W.B. will do it though.

[dnno1]

I guess Blade Runner and some other movies that don't make any money must suck then, if movies can only be considered great by making the most money.

Even though it is now a cult classic, they haven't made another Blade Runner film in over 25 years. That ought to tell you something (it's not worth the risk). In spite of this it does survive in some form as a graphic novel and video game franchise (chalk that one up to product diversification).

Dnno1's responses are now borderline on troll territory.

Sorry guy, I am only rebutting false and erroneous statements being made by those who seem to have an agenda to kill off the Justice League film before it even gets the chance to go into production. I am not personally flaming anyone nor are any of my posts off topic. I definitely don't fit the description of an Internet troll as you are trying to suggest.

[Showtime]

Sorry guy, I am only rebutting false and erroneous statements being made by those who seem to have an agenda to kill off the Justice League film before it even gets the chance to go into production. I am not personally flaming anyone nor are any of my posts off topic. I definitely don't fit the description of an Internet troll as you are trying to suggest.

I agree with you on that, you're not trolling, but just because something doesn't agree with your opinion or perception doesn't make it false. At least now it comes out, you're actually the one who is scared, that negativity is going to kill this movie. You can't kill what is already dead.

[GreenKToo]

I wonder if miller will remain, or if it will be a new director?

[The Major]

dnno1:

Blade Runner was a one shot story not a film franchise.

[dnno1]

I agree with you on that, you're not trolling, but just because something doesn't agree with you opinion or perception doesn't make it false. At least now it comes out, you're actually the one who is scared, that negativity is going to kill this movie. You can't kill what is already dead.

Well thank you for that. As far as being scared, it is more like a little disturbed by the fact that a small number of people are trying to persuade the masses with comments that have no basis. Solo films or an ensemble with spin-offs, it doesn't matter which order it comes in there is no "right" way in that aspect since so many films were successful in doing it either way in the past. Directors don't run the studios (they could sue them though) and they can be replaced (just ask Richard Donner and Lexi Alexander). I came to these forums to learn the truth not to hear falsehoods, and I will definitely call anyone out if something is false or questionable.

[dnno1]

dnno1:

Blade Runner was a one shot story not a film franchise.

If it had done well at the box office they would have wrote another. As it is right now they have written three other novels.

[Showtime]

Well thank you for that. As far as being scared, it is more like a little disturbed by the fact that a small number of people are trying to persuade the masses with comments that have no basis. Solo films or an ensemble with spin-offs, it doesn't matter which order it comes in there is no "right" way in that aspect since so many films were successful in doing it either way in the past. Directors don't run the studios (the could sue them though) and they can be replaced (just ask Richard Donner and Lexi Alexander). I came to these forums to learn the truth not to hear falsehoods, and I will definitely call anyone out if something is false or questionable.

Some people want it a different way, it's the same with any franchise.

Miller's JL vs Post Nolan JL
Perma White vs Make Up
Organic Web vs Non Organic
Superman Sequel vs Superman Reboot

I just think if you are refering to Nolan about being replaced as above, same goes for George Miller as well. If Nolan isn't safe, then no director is. Directors certainly don't run the studios, but when you make money for them, they aren't going to run from you.

[Hunter Rider]

If it had done well at the box office they would have wrote another. As it is right now they have written three other novels.

I'd say you're probably right there, but why are you so hellbent on having this movie happen ? did you not like TDK and SR ? I mean it's not like they are suggesting casting another superb actor as Batman, they are just throwing cheap easy money kids at this.

[bunk]

I agree with you on that, you're not trolling, but just because something doesn't agree with your opinion or perception doesn't make it false. At least now it comes out, you're actually the one who is scared, that negativity is going to kill this movie. You can't kill what is already dead.

Justice League: Mortal

That's for damn sure.

[Michael Corleone]

If it had done well at the box office they would have wrote another. As it is right now they have written three other novels.

Those novels were not written by Dick and while authorized they were written because of the cult status of the film and the popularity of Dick's work. Would they have made a sequel? Maybe, but you cannot say for a fact either way. In the end that's just an assumption, nothing more.

[dnno1]

I'd say you're probably right there, but why are you so hellbent on having this movie happen ? did you not like TDK and SR ? I mean it's not like they are suggesting casting another superb actor as Batman, they are just throwing cheap easy money kids at this.

Because Justice League is one of the most successful franchises in DC's line-up -- more so than than the individual parts outside of Superman and (maybe) Batman. It has had the longest running cartoon series in the "Super Friends" running 13 years and the characters are well known by many generations of viewers. Furthermore George Miller is a good director. He has made great films like those in the Mad Max series, "Lorenzo's Oil", "The Witches of Eastwick", and most recently, "Babe: Pig in the City" and "Happy Feet". The one distinction that can be made about him is that he has done well with very little money and talent. That is why I don't think people should knock the guy. We shouldn't let our selves be blinded by the Batman and Superman franchises, for they have proven that they can hold their own. So what if TDK is doing well and may get Heath Ledger an Oscar. Neither that film nor the Justice League franchise should have any bearing on each other (except for the hope that the presence of Batman may draw more fans to a Justice League film).

[Hunter Rider]

Because Justice League is one of the most successful franchises in DC's line-up -- more so than than the individual parts outside of Superman and (maybe) Batman. It has had the longest running cartoon series in the "Super Friends" running 13 years and the characters are well known by many generations of viewers. Furthermore George Miller is a good director. He has made great films like those in the Mad Max series, "Lorenzo's Oil", "The Witches of Eastwick", and most recently, "Babe: Pig in the City" and "Happy Feet". The one distinction that can be made about him is that he has done well with very little money and talent. That is why I don't think people should knock the guy. We shouldn't let our selves be blinded by the Batman and Superman franchises, for they have proven that they can hold their own. So what if TDK is doing well and may get Heath Ledger an Oscar. Neither that film nor the Justice League franchise should have any bearing on each other (except for the hope that the presence of Batman may draw more fans to a Justice League film).

But why not just wait a bit longer ? There is no rush, let the Batman franchise run it's course and then do JL, casting some nobody in a role made popular with the current cinema going audiences, by one of the best actors in the world just makes no logical business sense.

[dnno1]

But why not just wait a bit longer ? There is no rush, let the Batman franchise run it's course and then do JL, casting some nobody in a role made popular with the current cinema going audiences, by one of the best actors in the world just makes no logical business sense.

$$$$

We don't know when this genre is going to die out (It has several times in the past). Some say as a result of the WGA strike and the stalled SAG negotiations, the genre may have reached a pinnacle and may be dying right now (there will only be two films released next year). Waiting longer and there may not be a market for the film. Not only that but it will be more expensive to produce. Doing it as soon as it is ready is a better approach for that reason. I don't feel that it can hurt the Batman franchise since nothing has.

[Hunter Rider]

$$$$

We don't know when this genre is going to die out (It has several times in the past). Some say as a result of the WGA strike and the stalled SAG negotiations, the genre may reached a pinnacle and may be dying right now (there will only be two films released next year). Waiting longer and there may not be a market for the film. Not only that but it will be more expensive to produce. Doing it as soon as it is ready is a better approach for that reason.

TDK is currently shattering records and Iron Man has done $300M domestic this year, I'd say the genre is in fine shape and is so b/c of quality product, the fact next year is not over saturated with comic book movies is not a bad thing.
To make a movie with this supposed cast is just pointless when they have treat Batman so well, I also have to question if you're just fine with any JL movie as long as there is one, do you not think it should be cast with the same eye on high calibre actors as the Batman franchise has been ?

[GreenKToo]

How is it dying when we just had the biggest B.O. EVER by a C.B. film?
If anything, it tells me the hunger for them is still there.

[Michael Corleone]

How is it dying when we just had the biggest B.O. EVER by a C.B. film?
If anything, it tells me the hunger for them is still there.

I would argue that it's not dying out. A lot of what is holding back the superhero genre is f/x. While it's easy to create a lot of this stuff digitally as of late, it's still quite expensive. The industry still has to catch up. It is, but it's at a steady pace. The genre isn't going to die out because as long as there is imagination there will be new stories to tell. Hollywood knew this genre was a money maker. Now they are finally seeing that serious and meaningful stories can be told. Superhero films are just coming into their own right now. We are literally in the infancy. Wait 20 years and see what we get.

[Showtime]

I agree, I actually think this past decade was just the foundation to what lies ahead.

[dnno1]

...To make a movie with this supposed cast is just pointless when they have treat Batman so well, I also have to question if you're just fine with any JL movie as long as there is one, do you not think it should be cast with the same eye on high calibre actors as the Batman franchise has been ?

We really don't know that, in fact, for all we know this could be a brilliant cast. Remember "Star Wars, Episode IV: A New Hope"? It could happen again.

Speaking of Batman, I thought this clip was funny:

NlLeCu63HCA

[Hunter Rider]

We really don't know that, in fact, for all we know this could be a brilliant cast. Remember "Star Wars, Episode IV: A New Hope"? It could happen again.


I remember Harrison Ford..........But why bother when you already have a great Batman ? business is booming, JL in 2013 sounds just right.

[GreenKToo]

I still hope for a world's finest someday. Remember when Wolfgang Petersen was wanting to make S Vs. B? THAT would have been something.

[dnno1]

How is it dying when we just had the biggest B.O. EVER by a C.B. film?
If anything, it tells me the hunger for them is still there.

Well, as each year goes by, it cost more an more to make some of these films. "Spider-Man" cost $139 million to make in 2002 but cost $258 million to make "Spider-Man 3" in 2007 (some 5 years later). As it is right now the studios are wanting film makers to keep the budgets around $180 million which is a hard thing to do nowadays. While this is happening the average ticket price is not rising at the same rate (it has only risen 5% in the past two years whereas production cost have risen by almost 20% in the same time frame) and we are in an economic downturn right now. This could all serve to make the genre die down and is why I don't think it would not be wise to wait for a sequential release of solo films. Furthermore you also have the risk factor of films not doing well (like "The Incredible Hulk"). It makes it seem like you would be wasting your money that route.

[TheVileOne]

The genre is not dying down because all Hollywood wants to do right now are remakes and comic book movies.

dnno1 is out of his element and does not know what he is talking about.

If this is all about money,

once again for the last time,

The Dark Knight = more money than Miller Justice League.

[dnno1]

I remember Harrison Ford..........But why bother when you already have a great Batman ? business is booming, JL in 2013 sounds just right.

Because Marvel has/had X-Men, Spider-Man, Iron-Man, The Hulk, and Fantastic Four and tent pole franchises to draw revenue from. Sure, Batman may make more than Spider-Man numbers this year but what about next year? If the WB had a string of comic book film franchises like Marvel does to serve as tent poles each year, you would be making this $500-$800 million each year instead of waiting two to 3 years between films. The Harry Potter franchise is a cash cow producing films every 1-2 years and netting almost Spider-Man like numbers. That's what they want to see every year and if they want to do that they need to start with something. Why not Justice League if it's ready now?

[dnno1]

The genre is not dying down because all Hollywood wants to do right now are remakes and comic book movies.

dnno1 is out of his element and does not know what he is talking about.

If this is all about money,

once again for the last time,

The Dark Knight = more money than Miller Justice League.

The truth of the matter is that there are only two films that I know of out of Marvel and the WB that will be released next year and Marvel Entertainment is going to have a lot to answer to share holders when they show lower revenues than in previous years. As far as TDK vs. JLM and revenue, that is left to be seen.

[Hunter Rider]

Because Marvel has/had X-Men, Spider-Man, Iron-Man, The Hulk, and Fantastic Four and tent pole franchises to draw revenue from. Sure, Batman may make more than Spider-Man numbers this year but what about next year? If the WB had a string of comic book film franchises like Marvel does to serve as tent poles each year, you would be making this $500-$800 million each year instead of waiting two to 3 years between films. The Harry Potter franchise is a cash cow producing films every 1-2 years and netting almost Spider-Man like numbers. That's what they want to see every year and if they want to do that they need to start with something. Why not Justice League if it's ready now?

B/c it is a decision based purely on money and as a fan i don't care about that, If they want what Marvel have then they should start putting together Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Green Arrow and Flash movies.
Then when they are all done with top class actors, you do JL, instead of slapping it out there with the cast equivalent of Step up 2 the Streets.

[Evil Twin]

No doubt about it in regards to Happy Feet, but I'd be interested in who owns the rights to Happy Feet. He might have more clout then Singer, but Singer is still working with WB even if he isn't directing the sequel. See his upcoming projects.


I'd be surprised if Miller doesn't have the rights, or at least substantial control, for Happy Feet. He created the property, he reportedly has the rights to Mad Max in totality and he's been making movies as Writer/Director/Producer for 30 years. It's hard to imagine he's incompetent at controlling the rights to his concepts.

Also, why wouldn't WB work with Singer? Superman Returns may have been a relative disappointment, but most indications are that it made money. Certainly it's not a Speed Racer level bomb. And his prior track record is full of money making movies and a very successful television series. Valkyrie might need a lot of work, but it hasn't lost any money yet. The strike and a lack of big budget competition might even work in its favor financially.

To me, it seems like people are thinking in binary terms in terms of Nolan's involvement in Batman and George Miller's involvement in JLA. It very well may be that the best case scenario for WB may be a third Batman movie from Nolan, Happy Feet 2 (and 3?) from Miller, and a successful JLA movie.

Also, I think it's probably more complicated than people make it out to be between Nolan and WB management. WB's management certainly believes in and has been supportive of Nolan and has been very hands off. Do you think he'd like to work at Fox better? Burning bridges with one of the most director friendly studios isn't necessarily a smart choice.

[TheVileOne]

The truth of the matter is that there are only two films that I know of out of Marvel and the WB that will be released next year and Marvel Entertainment is going to have a lot to answer to share holders when they show lower revenues than in previous years. As far as TDK vs. JLM and revenue, that is left to be seen.

Dude. The fact of the matter is that TDK is raking in the revenue that you feel is the sole importance.

Last year and this year there was an industry halting work stoppage called the WGA strike. That means no new scripts being written. Bad movies being rushed to production to have stuff out during the year. Currently another union body, the SAG are working off an expired deal. They have no new deal in place, and while they are avoiding it, they could strike at any moment. That means another huge work stoppage.

Marvel Studios did so well this year they are already talking about opening up their own studio lot. And they've set up a plan for the next several years of what they want to do.

Comic book movies are not WB or Time Warner's sole source of revenue either. But a huge part of that this year is going to be because of The Dark Knight, which the movie of the year. And you seem to be in denial of why.

The reason Justice League is not in front of the cameras as we speak is because it wasn't ready. That's a ton of money to just throw something into, and WB was not ready to make that kind of investment. And they still aren't. This is why 7 months later, after all the reports about JL going back in front of the cameras for April or the summer, nothing is happening.

[I Am The Knight]

This thread certainly has picked up since I left, LOL.

[Dark Knight]

WB's should just let Miller concentrate on doing Happy Feet 2 and Miller should also start work on Mad Max 4....WITH Mel Gibson! If no Gibson as an older Max, then forget it. A big NO to the ridiculous Miller JLA that takes place in an silly alternate universe and would disrespect everything that Nolan has done so far.

[Dark Knight]

This thread certainly has picked up since I left, LOL.



This thread should be moved to the DC Comics Film Forum under the General Movies section actually.

[Dark Knight]

The truth of the matter is that there are only two films that I know of out of Marvel and the WB that will be released next year and Marvel Entertainment is going to have a lot to answer to share holders when they show lower revenues than in previous years. As far as TDK vs. JLM and revenue, that is left to be seen.



The truth of the matter is your kinda delusional....no offense....but seriously are you that desperate to see a mediocre JLA movie in 2010, that will step on the toes of a film like TDK that will be #2 in the all time Domestic Box Office rankings??

[I Am The Knight]

WB's should just let Miller concentrate on doing Happy Feet 2 and Miller should also start work on Mad Max 4....WITH Mel Gibson! If no Gibson as an older Max, then forget it. A big NO to the ridiculous Miller JLA that takes place in an silly alternate universe and would disrespect everything that Nolan has done so far.

Well it seems like Gibson might return to his "other" franchise first.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=47707

[Evil Twin]

If the WB had a string of comic book film franchises like Marvel does to serve as tent poles each year, you would be making this $500-$800 million each year instead of waiting two to 3 years between films. The Harry Potter franchise is a cash cow producing films every 1-2 years and netting almost Spider-Man like numbers. That's what they want to see every year and if they want to do that they need to start with something.

Harry Potter makes MORE than Spider-Man numbers when you figure in worldwide gross. The Harry Potter franchise is more successful than the Spider-Man and X-Men franchises combined, without even considering that the Harry Potter films are substantially lower budgeted as well. WB definitely could do more with their comic book properties, but they're hardly lacking in box office. Heck, purely based on gross vs. budget, Time-Warner's Sex and the City movie probably is more successful than both Hulk films combined. Get Smart might be too. Happy Feet outperformed a lot of Marvel's films as well on a smaller budget than most of them. 300 and I Am Legend were substantial hits. The Departed and Million Dollar Baby were very profitable and as Best Picture winners will continue to rake in money for years. Just a hunch, but The Hobbit might make a little money for WB as well.

While we're concerned with comic book movies, obviously, it's grossly insulting to the size and scope of WB, including feature films AND television, to really compare them to Marvel Studios. What's Marvel's 2009 schedule again? WB's already having a better year than Marvel, albeit with one flop on their plate. It's quite possible that Happy Feet 2 and Terminator will prove to be every bit as profitable, if not moreso, than Thor and Captain America.

[biolumen]

Well it seems like Gibson might return to his "other" franchise first.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=47707

If he's willing to return for Lethal Weapon 5, he'd probably be fine with returning for another Mad Max movie as well. He said some time ago that he wasn't interested in these movies any more, but I guess his run in with the law has changed his thinking.

[solidsnake86]

Well with the success of TDK it might mean that they will remove batman from a justice league movie or not do it at all. From the sounds of it green latern is the only property that may be realized for 2010.

They might feel that investing money in a green latern movie instead of investing in a JLA movie is not sound. Personally I think a Justice league movie that is half decent would rake in the cash and if they manage to beat marvel to the punch it would do just that. Once the batman franchise is done (most likely in 2011) a sequel to a justice league movie with batman in it would provide the anticipation for the fans and general audience to make a lot of money (theoretically of course).

Either way their silence on the situation is curious. Than again were only in august, when would a movie have to be announced if it was comming out in 2010

[biolumen]

The reason Justice League is not in front of the cameras as we speak is because it wasn't ready. That's a ton of money to just throw something into, and WB was not ready to make that kind of investment.

Incorrect. A little script polishing aside, the initial incarnation of the movie was ready to be made. Warners was willing to spend that kind of money because they were counting on getting 40% of the budget back via the Australian producer offset. When they were told that at most they'd get only 15% back via the location offset, Warners decided it was too expensive a movie to make down there, and perhaps too expensive to make anywhere. Subsequent rewrites were probably done to pare the budget down to make it feasable to film elsewhere. Whether they ever got the right combination of script and budget nailed down is anybody's guess.

[The Major]

$$$$

They'll only get that $$$ if they wisely execute their adaptions. Putting Batman in every movie is just a temporary solution at best. They need to know why Nolan's Batman films worked and follow procedures with fit other franchises with it.

We don't know when this genre is going to die out (It has several times in the past).

When did the genre die out before? What were the reasons?

Some say as a result of the WGA strike and the stalled SAG negotiations, the genre may have reached a pinnacle

It'll never reach its pinnacle as long as their are good stories to adapt and Hollywood does a good job adapting them.

Exactly why would the genre reach its pinnacle due to industry politics? Certainly other genres are affected by those conditions.

and may be dying right now (there will only be two films released next year).

All that means is that the studios weren't able to do more super-hero films that year. It doesn't mean interest has died off. TDK should be enough to encourage the studios to make more comic adaptions in the future.

Waiting longer and there may not be a market for the film.

I disagree.

people aren't going to forget TDK and Iron Man exist the second they leave movie theatres. The excitement will build back up when the public have something to see like their sequels or comic book movies just as good as they are.

Not only that but it will be more expensive to produce.

Doesn't it depend on the adaption and the people making it?

Doing it as soon as it is ready is a better approach for that reason.

What would be that reason?

I don't feel that it can hurt the Batman franchise since nothing has.

Agreed. They don't need to worry about Batman. They need to get the other super-hero franchises off the ground. They don't need JL to do that for them.

[solidsnake86]

The only problem was the first incarnation was practically a sequel to batman begins and even the dark knight with that sonar invention being like brother eye. What if nolan got upset because talia was being used, as well as other connections that he might have liked to explore in a third installment.

Especially after the story of the dark knight the third one needs to have all possible story options open and not hindered by the JL movie. Possibly after seeing a cut of the film WB realized this and thats why they told the writers to do a rewrite because why ruin a third movie with a potential one that was not getting love from most people.

[biolumen]

The only problem was the first incarnation was practically a sequel to batman begins and even the dark knight with that sonar invention being like brother eye. What if nolan got upset because talia was being used, as well as other connections that he might have liked to explore in a third installment.

Especially after the story of the dark knight the third one needs to have all possible story options open and not hindered by the JL movie. Possibly after seeing a cut of the film WB realized this and thats why they told the writers to do a rewrite because why ruin a third movie with a potential one that was not getting love from most people.

I agree that rewrites might have been an attempt to distance the movie from Nolan's Batman series. They could also have been an attempt at changing the movie to appease or accomidate Nolan in some fashion. Perhaps WB and Nolan are even having a dialog about the JL movie, addressing whatever Nolan might object to. Who knows?

As for that sonar thing in TDK, David Goyer had this to say about it.

IESB: Yes, I think we all were. We were really shocked. This is kind of a follow up because we also talked at the roundtable interview but there were elements in this movie that, and I have to ask because me as a geek and you are a self-professed geek, did we see the beginnings of Brother Eye with that sonar technology there?

DG: A tiny bit, I mean, we were obviously aware of that and we were also aware of that story arc in JLA, where Batman was spying on the other JLA members, it was like a tiny nod, maybe.

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5228&Itemid=99

[TheVileOne]

Incorrect. A little script polishing aside, the initial incarnation of the movie was ready to be made. Warners was willing to spend that kind of money because they were counting on getting 40% of the budget back via the Australian producer offset. When they were told that at most they'd get only 15% back via the location offset, Warners decided it was too expensive a movie to make down there, and perhaps too expensive to make anywhere. Subsequent rewrites were probably done to pare the budget down to make it feasable to film elsewhere. Whether they ever got the right combination of script and budget nailed down is anybody's guess.

Then it wasn't ready either way and its not incorrect.

[solidsnake86]

Out of all the comic book properties they have JLA is probably the one that may be ready to film if the script changes made were minor and production work already completed could still be used. If anything comes out of this project I would just like to see the WETA costume designs, hopefully they get leaked. Other than that I'm not too interested unless I know batman isn't in the movie and that the chances of a solo film for other heroes are not in the forseable future, meaning the next 5 years. I would really like to know what happend in that summit though.

[biolumen]

Then it wasn't ready either way and its not incorrect.

You imply the movie itself was not ready at that time when it clearly was. Circumstances beyond the movies' control were the cause of its delay. The movie gets the 40% offset, it's in production today.

[TheVileOne]

Keep telling yourself that biolumen. Because that's the only thing that will justify your last 6 months of posting here and on the IMDB boards.

[I Am The Knight]

As for that sonar thing in TDK, David Goyer had this to say about it.



http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5228&Itemid=99

I think he was talking about the arc in the comics, not the JLA movie, though.

[biolumen]

Ah, I see. Yes, maybe so.

[solidsnake86]

Obviously they have major rethinking to do with this property and if they didn't it would be in production. I think it had more to do with TDK's performance than the 40%, because if it did the same numbers as BB we would be seeing a justice league film as a last resort. JL is not a last resort for batman anymore. Depending on what happens to superman it might be a last resort for that character if they cannot decide what to do with a solo feature.

[biolumen]

Yes, reworking is no doubt in order. But this is now and that was then. This movie was set to start before TDK ever opened, that's why the 40% is more relevant. As for Superman, there might not even be an option, JL or solo, depending on the outcome of the November trial.

[KBX]

The genre is not dying down because all Hollywood wants to do right now are remakes and comic book movies.

dnno1 is out of his element and does not know what he is talking about.

If this is all about money,

once again for the last time,

The Dark Knight = more money than Miller Justice League.

If dnno1 is out of his element and does not know what he is talking about, than how do you know for a fact that 1 movie will make more than another movie that has not even hit the theaters yet? Sure you can predict and I personally think Miller is a pretty good director. Im more than willing to give the guy every opportunity especially when we truly know nothing about this project.

As you said if its all about money than its smart for WB to make both the batman sequel AND JL.

The truth of the matter is your kinda delusional....no offense....but seriously are you that desperate to see a mediocre JLA movie in 2010, that will step on the toes of a film like TDK that will be #2 in the all time Domestic Box Office rankings??

You know its a mediocre movie? Thank you so I don't have to waste my money on it. This movie could out in 2010, but I think it may be 2011.

So let me get this straight, if somehow this movie gets made, and they use a Batman. Bale, Hammer, someone else doesn't matter. And they use him in a few scenes, not as many as the other characters, that will make TDK sequel lose 100 million, possibly more at the box-office? come on now.

[solidsnake86]

Realistically WB is not going to loose the rights, their just going to dish out money so I don't even know why people are even bringing that up. Even for the Siegels, its to their benefit to strike a deal where they can make money and still have the character exist. Without the superman trademarks the character is useless.

[TheVileOne]

If dnno1 is out of his element and does not know what he is talking about, than how do you know for a fact that 1 movie will make more than another movie that has not even hit the theaters yet? Sure you can predict and I personally think Miller is a pretty good director. Im more than willing to give the guy every opportunity especially when we truly know nothing about this project.

Here's what we do know. THE DARK KNIGHT is the highest grossing comic book/super hero movie ever. It will most likely be the second highest grossing movie of all time. So those guys did SOMETHING right.

As you said if its all about money than its smart for WB to make both the batman sequel AND JL.

Not if a JL movie messes up the Batman sequel, when Batman is right now the proven money-making brand, and doing JL risks messing that up. That's another frakkin' point.

So let me get this straight, if somehow this movie gets made, and they use a Batman. Bale, Hammer, someone else doesn't matter. And they use him in a few scenes, not as many as the other characters, that will make TDK sequel lose 100 million, possibly more at the box-office? come on now.

I read this paragraph several times and it makes no sense at all.

Here's something I'm not going to bow to at all. Making another series of Batman movies at the same time as another is freaking STUPID.

[Webhead2006]

Well thats the thing we dont know really whats up with the nov court thing and then what happens with shusters heir. I would hate to see Superman get ripped out of dcu. But more then likely WB will try their best to make a deal with the families to continue using the copyright and all that. But the nov court date will play a big factor in things once we know how much wb/dc has to give back to the siegels and all that.

[biolumen]

I agree that it behooves all parties to come to agreement. I just feel that if the courts rule that Warners must share a much larger portion of the profits with the Siegels, a movie involving Superman becomes that much more unlikely. Warners has a bunch of different superhero characters to exploit, not to mention all the potentially hugely profitable movies that aren't superhero related.

I don't know. Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic. I hope so.

[TheVileOne]

What sucks is that the Siegels and Shusters weren't making tons of money off their creation when they were still alive.

I mean, companies have such iron grips and are so strict about their intellectual property, but the actual creators like these guys get jack.

Stan Lee is basically a household name and television star now though.

[KBX]

Here's what we do know. THE DARK KNIGHT is the highest grossing comic book/super hero movie ever. It will most likely be the second highest grossing movie of all time. So those guys did SOMETHING right.

I never said they didn't do anything wrong. I love what Nolan has done.

Not if a JL movie messes up the Batman sequel, when Batman is right now the proven money-making brand, and doing JL risks messing that up. That's another frakkin' point.

Again having bats show up, whoever that is, for a scene or 2, doesn't mess up anything.

At best, if its happening, JLA will come out in 2010, at worst the 3rd Nolan movie will end in 2011. Its not like these franchises will be running side by side here.

I read this paragraph several times and it makes no sense at all.

Here's something I'm not going to bow to at all. Making another series of Batman movies at the same time as another is freaking STUPID.

This is not another batman franchise. Yes he may be a part of it, but no where as close to what you are leading on. Let me make things a little simpler. Having Bale show up in a JL movie, even if its for one scene, will that mess up the solo Batman franchise?

Best way to do this is what Downey Jr. did to TIH. He showed up, just for one scene. Now by him doing that, did that mess up the Ironman franchise? I don't think so

[dark_b]

Sure, a Nolan sequel would please the shareholders. Can he do one every year for the next decade? Because at Warners they're out of harry Potter books and need new successful franchises.i forgot that the only franschise that WB can have is batman and JL :woot:

there are milions stories with fresh new ideas and characters where they can have their franchise. even a GL movie.

TDK will money for two big blockbusters.

[Antonello Blueberry]

i forgot that the only franschise that WB can have is batman and JL :woot:

there are milions stories with fresh new ideas and characters where they can have their franchise. even a GL movie.

TDK will money for two big blockbusters.

WB has lot of possibilities to choose from for its next big franchise, sure. But on paper what could be more successful that the live action adventures of a group with Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and the others?

[dark_b]

$$$$

We don't know when this genre is going to die out (It has several times in the past). Some say as a result of the WGA strike and the stalled SAG negotiations, the genre may have reached a pinnacle and may be dying right now (there will only be two films released next year). Waiting longer and there may not be a market for the film. Not only that but it will be more expensive to produce. Doing it as soon as it is ready is a better approach for that reason. I don't feel that it can hurt the Batman franchise since nothing has.
the question is what does money mean to you. why do you care if WB makes money with JL? they did enough with TDK already. and its not even finished yet.

so again if you like the characters and the idea ok. but why money?

[dark_b]

WB has lot of possibilities to choose from for its next big franchise, sure. But on paper what could be more successful that the live action adventures of a group with Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and the others?lets make something clear. JL will not 100% make money.

the same was said for superman. it was the safest comicbook movie....

if you have the wrong script and the wrong time(realese date) your JL movie can bomb.

[Antonello Blueberry]

lets make something clear. JL will not 100% make money.

the same was said for superman. it was the safest comicbook movie....

if you have the wrong script and the wrong time(realese date) your JL movie can bomb.

The movie could bomb, but it's really difficult as the concept itself will sell the movie: the greatest superhero group of all the time.
And show in the trailer Superman beating the crap out of Batman and Wonder Woman (as he was supposed to do in the movie) and people will flock in the theaters.

[Jake Cassidy]

I have no doubt that a movie with SUPERMAN, BATMAN and WONDER WOMAN will draw people in. They're just 3 of the most well known and popular fictional characters of ALL TIME. :oldrazz:

The movie actually being good is the real question. :yay:

[dark_b]

The movie could bomb, but it's really difficult as the concept itself will sell the movie: the greatest superhero group of all the time.
And show in the trailer Superman beating the crap out of Batman and Wonder Woman (as he was supposed to do in the movie) and people will flock in the theaters.
not anymore. after SR i belive that nothing is safe. a JL movie now is like any other movie.

[Antonello Blueberry]

not anymore. after SR i belive that nothing is safe. a JL movie now is like any other movie.
After SR?
Come on, are you one of those who considers a movie that made 400 millions worldwide a flop?
What should WB do to the Wachowski bros after the Speed Racer flop? Shoot them in the head? Instead they produced another movie from them and are willing to produce others....

[GreenKToo]

Well, as each year goes by, it cost more an more to make some of these films. "Spider-Man" cost $139 million to make in 2002 but cost $258 million to make "Spider-Man 3" in 2007 (some 5 years later). As it is right now the studios are wanting film makers to keep the budgets around $180 million which is a hard thing to do nowadays. While this is happening the average ticket price is not rising at the same rate (it has only risen 5% in the past two years whereas production cost have risen by almost 20% in the same time frame) and we are in an economic downturn right now. This could all serve to make the genre die down and is why I don't think it would not be wise to wait for a sequential release of solo films. Furthermore you also have the risk factor of films not doing well (like "The Incredible Hulk"). It makes it seem like you would be wasting your money that route.
But couldnt you say the same thing about all films in general? If the downturn in the economy plays a factor in the C.B. genre dying down, why wouldnt it also for all films?
I see no evidence of that. If anything, people are going to the theater more for escapism and hope.

As for the cost to make these kinds of films, all films are costing more now, not just C.B. films. Just look at how much PoTc 3 cost.

[BATZARRO WWD]

Here's what we do know. THE DARK KNIGHT is the highest grossing comic book/super hero movie ever. It will most likely be the second highest grossing movie of all time. So those guys did SOMETHING right.



Not if a JL movie messes up the Batman sequel, when Batman is right now the proven money-making brand, and doing JL risks messing that up. That's another frakkin' point.



I read this paragraph several times and it makes no sense at all.

Here's something I'm not going to bow to at all. Making another series of Batman movies at the same time as another is freaking STUPID.

It is not another series of Batman movies. It is the Justice League. It will be easilly distinguishable from the Nolan films because of the sci fi/fantasy elements. Justice League is a brand itself. Exactly how is making a different movie WITH Batman mess up a third Nolan film? There are far too many assumptions in your arguments.

[Evil Twin]

All hypothetical below and I'm in no way predicting that JL will move forward.

Unless JL is an out and out stinker I have a hard time seeing it doing less than $400 million worldwide. Superman, Batman, WW, and the three of them fighting is a strong hook to get audiences interested. I doubt we'd have seen anything less than first class special effects either. It would also be a merchandising machine as well. Superman Returns type of box office return isn't bad by any means if you can bring the film in on a reasonable budget.

Being a critical success on the other hand...

I think the Sascha Baron Cohen and Robert Downey Jr. upcoming Sherlock Holmes projects are a likely example on how two interpretations of the same character could exist. Clear differentiation in tone, but with equally credible actors as the character.

As an aside, I've seen no reason that WB NEEDS to commit any more fully to superhero movies than they have already. Although there are no flops this year, you really can only point to three out of five superhero movies as true successes. Yeah, they'll need to replace Harry Potter on the slate eventually, but it's just as likely with a different family friendly fantasy series as it is with a superhero franchise. Less diversity in terms of genre might not be a good long term strategy for a company like WB which prefers to maintain a diverse back catalog of material.

[dnno1]

Here's what we do know. THE DARK KNIGHT is the highest grossing comic book/super hero movie ever. It will most likely be the second highest grossing movie of all time. So those guys did SOMETHING right.

The Dark Knight has only made $406 million at the time of this posting. What are you talking about. You should wait until the cycle is over and the dust clears before you insert your foot in your mouth.

[dnno1]

But couldnt you say the same thing about all films in general? If the downturn in the economy plays a factor in the C.B. genre dying down, why wouldnt it also for all films?
I see no evidence of that. If anything, people are going to the theater more for escapism and hope.

As for the cost to make these kinds of films, all films are costing more now, not just C.B. films. Just look at how much PoTc 3 cost.

To answer your question, in general, no. A good number of comedies, dramas and horror films cost much less than these types of films and can some times yield a better profit margin. If you are talking about action/adventure flicks that are SfX intensive then yes. It is difficult to keep them under $180 million, which seems to be the magic number that some studios would like to keep their pictures under.

[hippie_hunter]

It is not another series of Batman movies. It is the Justice League. It will be easilly distinguishable from the Nolan films because of the sci fi/fantasy elements. Justice League is a brand itself. Exactly how is making a different movie WITH Batman mess up a third Nolan film? There are far too many assumptions in your arguments.

Actually with the way the script was, it wasn't at all easy to distinguish the Batman from the Nolan movies and the Batman from Justice League. The script was originally written with Bale in mind for the role and when they couldn't get him and said that he was a different Batman, they still had him going up against Talia for the death of Ra's al Ghul (who was killed in Batman Begins).

[Showtime]

The Dark Knight has only made $406 million at the time of this posting. What are you talking about. You should wait until the cycle is over and the dust clears before you insert your foot in your mouth.

Which makes it the highest grossing "Comic Book Adaptation" or "Superhero" movie of all time. Since you are using 406 Million as it's gross you are talking about domestic, Dark Knight is now #1 domestically in those categories. How is he putting his foot in his mouth?

[FlawlessVictory]

The Dark Knight has only made $406 million at the time of this posting. What are you talking about. You should wait until the cycle is over and the dust clears before you insert your foot in your mouth.

It's posts like these that make you look like a joke.

News

The Dark Knight Surpasses Spider-Man
Source: Media by Numbers (http://mediabynumbers.com/)
August 6, 2008


Warner Bros. Pictures' The Dark Knight (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=15813) climbed to 7th place on the all-time domestic blockbuster list on Tuesday, surpassing the first Spider-Man to become the biggest comic book movie of all-time in North America.

The Christopher Nolan-directed Batman Begins follow-up added $5.67 million on Tuesday to bring its massive total to $405.7 million after just 19 days. Spider-Man reached $403.7 million domestically during its entire run in 2002.

The movie will next target Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, which sits at #6 with $423.3 million.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/spider-mannews.php?id=7573


And I love how you write "has only made $406 mil". And do you think TDK's run at the BO is over? Guess what, news gets much worse for you, because it is predicted this film is headed towards $500 mil!

Your posts truly are a joke, first cookies and now trying to mouth off when you yourself don't know the facts.

[dnno1]

the question is what does money mean to you. why do you care if WB makes money with JL? they did enough with TDK already. and its not even finished yet.

so again if you like the characters and the idea ok. but why money?

Well, isn't that the point of this whole exercise? You don't do something for noting right. You might go to the theater and pay your $7 to see a film and you expect to either get some enjoyment from the film or a smooch from your significant other don't you? The same thing goes for the studio. They only make films in the intrest of making a profit from them (first and foremost). There are other goals as well but not as important as money making. People loose their jobs if that doesn't happen.

[BATZARRO WWD]

not anymore. after SR i belive that nothing is safe. a JL movie now is like any other movie.

Now, I believe Superman Returns was targeted at the wrong demographic. Superman is a character who is a hard sell for women, and this movie and it's marketing sort of ephasized a romantic kind of thing. I mean, of course, there IS romance in the Superman mythos, but it's should not be the center focus of the film like in SR. Wrong target audience = underwhelming box office.


Yes, I went off topic. But really, were all offtopic because we're talking about Dark Knight, when this is a board about Justice League. Whatever money Dark Knight has earned, and the influence it may have on the Justice League film, if any, is a really flimsy topic. Because for those who are less enthusiastic about the film, it is a sure sign Justice League is dead. But that is, at least to this point, only speculation. You could also easily say making more money of the Superhero franchizes by making more (up to and including THIS Justice League) could be the only inmediate result of it.

"But Batzarro: Dark Knight made (quantity of money) that means Nolan owns them. They won't go thought with this, because they can't risk pissing him off!"

This thought line follows various unproven assumptions.

a) That Christopher Nolan cares so much about this, he's willing to walk away from "Dark Knight Sequel: Escape to Money Mountain".:wow:

b) That his first request in the next meeting with Warner will be "end the JL movie you're working on":woot:

c) That this movie couldn't have been stalled for the writers strike, SaG negotiations, and Tax Rebate failiures at Australia. No, it was Cristopher Nolan, who's always busy stopping other movies when he's not doing his own.:whatever:

d)That they can't just strike a deal they can all agree with. I mean, really? If he had a specific complaint(i.e. Thalia), do you think they wouldn't just sit down and talk about it. No, it's "kill the movie!". It's fun when you're opinion matches exactly what you believe will happen!

And Showtime, I am a christian man, so I know saying something is happening "soon" is a nice way of saying it may or may not happen. Especially in yes or no situations. As I see it, there are only two possible outcomes for this movie: It gets cancelled, or it gets done. You could(not accusing you, of course) easily say one of the two possible outcomes is happening "real soon" and you'd have 50% probability chance of success in your prediction. Regardless of wether you actually know anything or not.

I guess the question is: Are they announcing it "Jesus" soon, or real soon?:cwink:

[dnno1]

It's posts like these that make you look like a joke.



http://www.superherohype.com/news/spider-mannews.php?id=7573


And I love how you write "has only made $406 mil". And do you think TDK's run at the BO is over? Guess what, news gets much worse for you, because it is predicted this film is headed towards $500 mil!

Your posts truly are a joke, first cookies and now trying to mouth off when you yourself don't know the facts.

I'm sorry, I meant $609 million. The film hasn't made more than any of the Spider-Man films yet so it is premature to say that it is the highest grosing film of all time.

[dark_b]

After SR?
Come on, are you one of those who considers a movie that made 400 millions worldwide a flop?
What should WB do to the Wachowski bros after the Speed Racer flop? Shoot them in the head? Instead they produced another movie from them and are willing to produce others....SR is not a flop. the budget was to hight and the movie was not for the masses.
so no MOS 2 years after.

[dark_b]

After SR?
Come on, are you one of those who considers a movie that made 400 millions worldwide a flop?
What should WB do to the Wachowski bros after the Speed Racer flop? Shoot them in the head? Instead they produced another movie from them and are willing to produce others....SR is not a flop. the budget was to hight and the movie was not for the masses.
so no MOS 2 years after.

[GreenKToo]

I'm sorry, I meant $609 million. The film hasn't made more than any of the Spider-Man films yet so it is premature to say that it is the highest grosing film of all time.
Their talking about TDk making the most ever Dom. and it will prolly, IMVHO, end up around 850/900 mill W.W.

[Showtime]

And Showtime, I am a christian man, so I know saying something is happening "soon" is a nice way of saying it may or may not happen. Especially in yes or no situations. As I see it, there are only two possible outcomes for this movie: It gets cancelled, or it gets done. You could(not accusing you, of course) easily say one of the two possible outcomes is happening "real soon" and you'd have 50% probability chance of success in your prediction. Regardless of wether you actually know anything or not.

I guess the question is: Are they announcing it "Jesus" soon, or real soon?:cwink:

I already not so subtlely alluded to the movie being canceled in post after post. So why you're questioning that part of it makes no sense.

In regards to what exactly is happening, I can't say, but I have posted it on these boards already and I will just quote it or link to it when and if this news does indeed drop. In addition I have already told some posters that post in this very section, so it really is pretty clear.

[Michael Corleone]

I'm sorry, I meant $609 million. The film hasn't made more than any of the Spider-Man films yet so it is premature to say that it is the highest grosing film of all time.

It's surpassed all three Spider-man films in the U.S. That's what people are talking about. Read their posts before you jump on them. TDK has not opened in many of the markets that those films did their best foreign numbers in either. Please check your numbers before you make such statements. When this film leaves theaters this summer, you will also have to wait and see because of the OSCARs. If Ledger does get a nomination and if there are even more noms for the film, make no mistake this film will be re-released in the theaters. That will add even more to the numbers.

But enough of that. This is a Justice League thread. Not a Dark Knight B.O. thread.

[Evil Twin]

a) That Christopher Nolan cares so much about this, he's willing to walk away from "Dark Knight Sequel: Escape to Money Mountain".:wow:



Yeah, I don't really get why it's even an issue to him. WB is likely to schedule the next Batman movie for 2011 with a free hand to Nolan for production, scripting, etc. Nolan's movie will likely be well into production before Justice League even debuts and there's no indication that WB is inclined to interfere. So, he gets a pile of money, the cast he wants, no interference, and whether JL interferes with the box office on that movie or not is on WB, not him.

What does he possibly get out of spiking JL, on his say so, except a reputation for not playing well with others and possibly being a control freak?

If I were going to lay odds, I'd say that JL is not going to go forward and Miller is eventually going to move on to Mad Max and Happy Feet 2. But I'd say that "appeasing Nolan" will be a very, very minor reason why that happens.

[TheVileOne]

dnno1 has proven with his posts that he's a divisive troll.

I'm tired of this whole too realistic/sci-fi fantasy crap as well. I imagine a Justice League movie would NOT look like Sin City, 300, or the Spirit because that would be ridiculous for that material.

The Dark Knight still had the sonar system, which was most definitely SCIENCE FICTION. Also Two-Face which really treaded the line. Two-face wasn't exactly a guy in make-up or Liam Neeson.

[I Am The Knight]

Yeah, I don't really get why it's even an issue to him. WB is likely to schedule the next Batman movie for 2011 with a free hand to Nolan for production, scripting, etc. Nolan's movie will likely be well into production before Justice League even debuts and there's no indication that WB is inclined to interfere. So, he gets a pile of money, the cast he wants, no interference, and whether JL interferes with the box office on that movie or not is on WB, not him.

What does he possibly get out of spiking JL, on his say so, except a reputation for not playing well with others and possibly being a control freak?

If I were going to lay odds, I'd say that JL is not going to go forward and Miller is eventually going to move on to Mad Max and Happy Feet 2. But I'd say that "appeasing Nolan" will be a very, very minor reason why that happens.

Yeah, it doesn't adds up...But anyway, talented people = (Control) freaks

[TheVileOne]

Nolan's right for not wanting two sets of Batman movies released so close together.

But for you people to insult Nolan in this way means you believe he had something to do with halting the production and it wasn't just the script or the tax rebate.

[dnno1]

It's surpassed all three Spider-man films in the U.S. That's what people are talking about. Read their posts before you jump on them. TDK has not opened in many of the markets that those films did their best foreign numbers in either. Please check your numbers before you make such statements. When this film leaves theaters this summer, you will also have to wait and see because of the OSCARs. If Ledger does get a nomination and if there are even more noms for the film, make no mistake this film will be re-released in the theaters. That will add even more to the numbers.

But enough of that. This is a Justice League thread. Not a Dark Knight B.O. thread.

My comment was addressing the one made by TheVileOne (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=15438849#post15438849) where he said the TDK was the highest grossing film of all time. He said nothing about it being domestic or world wide. It is still too premature to say that.

[TheVileOne]

I said highest comic book super hero movie ever. And I'm right about that. It just surpassed Spider-man. And I'm not talking about worldwide. Domestically its beaten everything before. And it will quite possibly do it worldwide as well.

It will be on tap to probably be the second highest grossing movie ever behind Titanic.

And for mr. troll dnno1 who's only talking about how WB only cares about money and pleasing their shareholders . . . it's called THE DARK KNIGHT which is their biggest cash cow of the year and recent memory.

The movie's barely been out three weeks and could still be in theatres another three months. And its already made about $410 million.

[The Major]

Less diversity in terms of genre might not be a good long term strategy for a company like WB which prefers to maintain a diverse back catalog of material.

The super-hero genre has many sub-genres within it including fantasy, politics, espionage, noir, sci-fi, space opera, horror, comedy, satire and more. There is diversity there.

[Michael Corleone]

My comment was addressing the one made by TheVileOne (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=15438849#post15438849) where he said the TDK was the highest grossing film of all time. He said nothing about it being domestic or world wide. It is still too premature to say that.

I believe what was said was "It will most likely be the second highest grossing movie of all time."

As for it being premature to say if will be the second highest grossing film of all time? Perhaps, but that hasn't stopped almost every major industry publication, print and web, to say it as well.

Edit: But like I said, this is a thread about the Justice League film. If you really want to talk about this, why don't you go to The Dark Knight forum.

[dnno1]

They'll only get that $$$ if they wisely execute their [adaptations]. Putting Batman in every movie is just a temporary solution at best. They need to know why Nolan's Batman films worked and follow procedures with fit other franchises with it.

Putting Batman in every movie is akin to putting Gene Hackman in the Superman films. They tend to do better with his presence. I think my reply was to the question "why shouldn't we wait until the Batman films are finished?". My answer was because there is money to be made right now (or as soon as it can be). Getting into the how and understanding Nolan's Batman is getting a little off the point and subject to another discussion.

When did the genre die out before? What were the reasons?

Good question. From my recollection, there have been 3 distinct periods starting as early as 1989. See this wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhero_film) for a brief synopsis.

It'll never reach its pinnacle as long as their are good stories to adapt and Hollywood does a good job adapting them.
Exactly why would the genre reach its pinnacle due to industry politics? Certainly other genres are affected by those conditions.

One could say that, but in truth, the first era of comic book films basically died because of politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Subcommittee_on_Juvenile_Delinquency#1954_C omic_Book_Hearings). Don't think that it couldn't happen again.

All that means is that the studios weren't able to do more super-hero films that year. It doesn't mean interest has died off. TDK should be enough to encourage the studios to make more comic adaptions in the future.

What was that saying again? "When the cat's away...." The absence of comic book films just leaves the opening for another genre to take its place. Next year is the opportunity for someone to produce a hit films that may change the trend. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

I disagree.

people aren't going to forget TDK and Iron Man exist the second they leave movie theatres. The excitement will build back up when the public have something to see like their sequels or comic book movies just as good as they are.

I am not talking about today. I am talking about years down the line. People may not be interested in these types of films 5 years from now. In addition, we may not have Superman.

Doesn't it depend on the adaption and the people making it?

Certainly. But if you will notice most of the superhero films fall into that category. I am sure that it was a little cheaper to make TDK because the re-used some of the props for the film.

What would be that reason?

That it (the Justice League film) would be more expensive to produce in the future (circa 2013).

Agreed. They don't need to worry about Batman. They need to get the other super-hero franchises off the ground. They don't need JL to do that for them.

It will be more expensive that way. Look at what happened to the Hulk, the Punisher, Daredevil et. al.

[solidsnake86]

No offence dnno1 but your probably one of a handful of people that want batman in a JL movie within the next two years. If a JL movie is made and it sucks that will definately affect the batman franchise if its not completed. I don't think WB and frankly most fans want that. Second, why exactly do you care what money WB spends on the movie and how expensive it will be, its not your money. If they feel that they can make money off of it they will invest.

[dnno1]

No offence dnno1 but your probably one of a handful of people that want batman in a JL movie within the next two years. If a JL movie is made and it sucks that will definately affect the batman franchise if its not completed. I don't think WB and frankly most fans want that. Second, why exactly do you care what money WB spends on the movie and how expensive it will be, its not your money. If they feel that they can make money off of it they will invest.

That's a bunch of baloney. Batman has survived the criticism of "Batman and Robin" and well as "Catwoman". It's just a baseless supposition that it would be affected by a bad Justice League film (if there is such a thing with Batman Supeman and Wonder Woman in it). You have not proof that that is the case.

[Michael Corleone]

That's a bunch of baloney. Batman has survived the criticism of "Batman and Robin" and well as "Catwoman". It's just a baseless supposition that it would be affected by a bad Justice League film (if there is such a thing with Batman Supeman and Wonder Woman in it). You have not proof that that is the case.

No one said anything about it not surviving. But it would certainly hurt in respect to the franchise of JL, not Nolan's though.

Batman took several years to recover from B&R and Catwoman never had any real connection to Batman other than she was known as a villian. The franchise survived yes, but it wasn't easy to come back.

[BATZARRO WWD]

No offence dnno1 but your probably one of a handful of people that want batman in a JL movie within the next two years. If a JL movie is made and it sucks that will definately affect the batman franchise if its not completed. I don't think WB and frankly most fans want that. Second, why exactly do you care what money WB spends on the movie and how expensive it will be, its not your money. If they feel that they can make money off of it they will invest.

On the other hand you are caring about a Justice League movie affecting a Dark Knight sequel, wich is essentially the same as caring how much money WB makes out of it.

Now, since we're borderline theorical, let's play out a scenario.

August 2011: Justice Leagued has bombed. The public, for whatever reason, has rejected it. What will Warner do?

A: Continue planning (hell, at this point, it's more like continue filming, right?) a sequel to the box office hit "Dark Knight"

B: "Oh, no, Superhero movies are no longer viable!"

Now, the Dark Knight's success has been well documented on these pages. What would stop them from making a sequel? A lot of folks will go see it, even if it's just a mockery of a film(wich is unlikely...but just sayin'...) If Nolan won't do it they'll get someone else. So, yeah, no need to worry about Nol-Bat 3. It's safe. Ain't no need to gang up on Justice League..

[solidsnake86]

No proof, BB's box office performance is proof enough, you really are that desperate to see this movie that you will accept anything.

[The Major]

Putting Batman in every movie is akin to putting Gene Hackman in the Superman films. They tend to do better with his presence.

I can understand that.

It is short term gains, though. Lex Luthor has become played out with the public. They want new enemies. Superman has them, WB needs to use them.

I think my reply was to the question "why shouldn't we wait until the Batman films are finished?". My answer was because there is money to be made right now (or as soon as it can be).

It will be short term money unless they execute it wisely.

Over-saturation can blow up in their faces easily. Then what are they going to do? The money will not come in as much anymore and they’ll risk having to restart Batman again. When they should be focusing on starting up other super-hero franchises so they won’t just have to rely on Batman and Superman saving their bacon.

Nolan's Batman movies weren't only successful because Batman was it. That was just one piece of the puzzle. Once they notice which tactics worked then they can duplicate it with versions which fit other non-Batman films. Studio execs taking over just to exploit short term lowest common denominator plans will just revert whatever progress Nolan's made with Batman. The money train will end and they'll have only themselves to blame.

Getting into the how and understanding Nolan's Batman is getting a little off the point and subject to another discussion.
Okay.

Good question. From my recollection, there have been 3 distinct periods starting as early as 1989. See this wiki for a brief synopsis.

Interesting.

One could say that, but in truth, the first era of comic book films basically died because of politics. Don't think that it couldn't happen again.

Okay.

What was that saying again? "When the cat's away...." The absence of comic book films just leaves the opening for another genre to take its place.

WB should have thought of that ahead of time. It’s not like they don’t have any other super-hero franchises to adapt.

That’s what they get when they put all their eggs in two baskets. Now they’re paying for it.

Next year is the opportunity for someone to produce a hit films that may change the trend. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

Agreed.

I am not talking about today. I am talking about years down the line. People may not be interested in these types of films 5 years from now.

Okay.

In addition, we may not have Superman.

This wouldn't have been as much of a problem if WB had done a better job on their other super-hero franchises.

They have wasted every opportunity so far.

Certainly. But if you will notice most of the superhero films fall into that category. I am sure that it was a little cheaper to make TDK because the re-used some of the props for the film.

Can't they use equipment from Nolan's Batman and other films for other comic franchises? Surely the equipment from TDK could be used on The Question, Birds of Prey, Kate Spencer Manhunter and Huntress movies.

That it (the Justice League film) would be more expensive to produce in the future (circa 2013).

They can adapt cheaper DC franchises in the mean time.

When the prices go down JL will be there to make it.

t will be more expensive that way.

It can also pay off big time.

Look at what happened to the Hulk, the Punisher, Daredevil et. al.

Blade, Iron Man, X-men, Hellboy.

Why settle for only 2 successful super-hero franchises when they could have 4 or 6 or more?

[solidsnake86]

I do care about Batman more than the Justice League and you know what, a lot of people will agree with me seeing as how batman is probably dc's most popular character. I don't think anyone here wouldn't want to see a justice league film, but I would say most want to see it done properly. With the previous casting suggestions its no wonder why they aren't greenlighting this film. People want quality films.

Look at spider-man 3, if that movie was actually half decent theirs no doubt it would have made more money, if you think that movie wont have an effect on a 4th spider-man movie your dreaming.

[TheVileOne]

I'm suspicious that dnno1 could perhaps be Baghdad Uncle Bingo Bob back from the dead.

[KBX]

Why settle for only 2 successful super-hero franchises when they could have 4 or 6 or more?

And this is a main reason why I don't have a problem with a JL movie in the near future. It is not like we are having a GL or Flash movie in a year, or one being very successful right now. The WB had opportunity after opportunity to get one out, but no, still Bats and Sups. The only issue right now is the Bats franchise, but thats barely an issue cause when/if this franchise starts up, Bats will now be ending.

The WB doesn't want a GL/Flash/WW film unless it can make Ironman money. I personally think if everything goes right, it can be done. But a lot has to fall in place, A LOT. They don't care about making a DC comicbook movie unless it can bring in $$$$. IF a Flash movie made 175 mil, and everyone loved it from the critics to the fans, thats a failure in their eyes.

[FlawlessVictory]

The WB doesn't want a GL/Flash/WW film unless it can make Ironman money. I personally think if everything goes right, it can be done. But a lot has to fall in place, A LOT. They don't care about making a DC comicbook movie unless it can bring in $$$$. IF a Flash movie made 175 mil, and everyone loved it from the critics to the fans, thats a failure in their eyes.

Lets face it, most people did not think Iron Man could make "Iron Man" kind of money. But Marvel Studios got fully behind the movie, got the right talent behind and in front of the camera and put a lot of care and quality into the product. Then they promoted the hell out of it. And the end result was a massive sucess.

WB could potentially have a big franchise in GL. But they have to be willing to fully throw themselves behind it and stop being so tentative. Don't half ass it, hire top quality for the film, stick to the material (no Jack Black spoof) and put their full support behind it. Because the general audience won't believe in the product unless the studio does first.

If they put the effort, care and quality into the film and then put a strong promotional campaign together, they could really be in store for another strong DC superhero franchise. Only WB's lack of imagination can hold back what can be done with the character of GL.

[The Major]

And this is a main reason why I don't have a problem with a JL movie in the near future.

Do you think if JL fails it won't affect the other solo film franchises negatively?

It is not like we are having a GL or Flash movie in a year,

They won't ever get made unless they're green lighted first.

or one being very successful right now.

Those films aren't going to make be successful unless they're made.

The WB had opportunity after opportunity to get one out, but no, still Bats and Sups.

And when they do they self destruct to often.

The only issue right now is the Bats franchise, but thats barely an issue cause when/if this franchise starts up, Bats will now be ending.

They'll still make Batman films no matter what.

The WB doesn't want a GL/Flash/WW film unless it can make Ironman money. I personally think if everything goes right, it can be done.

This wouldn't be as much of a problem had they bothered actually supporting these characters enough so the public will flock to their movies. They all have potential. They need to use cartoon series to get the public interested or at least to know the basics for films being made. Get a WW, GL, GA, Flash cartoon series in motion to build interest. They have to be good, of course. Bad cartoons would have the opposite effect.

After the movie wait a few years then do it again with updated versions. Keep them in the public's consciousness. Have them guest-star in other cartoons within the DCU when they don't have solo cartoons.

WB either can't see it or can't be bothered making enough of an effort to get it right. They are slowly improving.

But a lot has to fall in place, A LOT.

No different from any other film they make.

They don't care about making a DC comic book movie unless it can bring in $$$$.

To an extent. I doubt they know even the major franchises enough to really know that for sure. I doubt they know their minor franchises at all.

IF a Flash movie made 175 mil, and everyone loved it from the critics to the fans, thats a failure in their eyes.

They should be seeing it as an oppotunity. A first step in a film franchise which could join Batman and Superman as it grows.

There's no reason a franchise like that couldn't make Iron Man money in the sequels.

Flawless:

Agreed.

[dnno1]

It is short term gains, though. Lex Luthor has become played out with the public. They want new enemies. Superman has them, WB needs to use them.

It 's true that the Luthor character is getting a little trite, but as for short term gains it wasn't so much that but rather having an actor that could carry the film (meaning draw an audience). Both Hackman and Kidder were in the film for that reason. On that topic, they could (and maybe should) try to introduce new villians in a Superman sequel, but I think whomever is cast should be an A-list actor. Brandon Routh (although expected to be Superman) can not carry the film by himself.

Over-saturation can blow up in their faces easily. Then what are they going to do? The money will not come in as much anymore and they’ll risk having to restart Batman again. When they should be focusing on starting up other super-hero franchises so they won’t just have to rely on Batman and Superman saving their bacon.

The market was able to sustain close to 10 different franchises back in the 1940's. Who know if they couldn't sustain more today.

Nolan's Batman movies weren't only successful because Batman was it. That was just one piece of the puzzle. Once they notice which tactics worked then they can duplicate it with versions which fit other non-Batman films. Studio execs taking over just to exploit short term lowest common denominator plans will just revert whatever progress Nolan's made with Batman. The money train will end and they'll have only themselves to blame.

I don't think there is a big secret on how to make a good film. The hard part is trying to get a good story and keep in under budget.

WB should have thought of that ahead of time. It’s not like they don’t have any other super-hero franchises to adapt. That’s what they get when they put all their eggs in two baskets. Now they’re paying for it.

I think both they (and DC) already have. They know what they want to adapt and they also know that these characters are relatively weak (compared to the Superman and Batman franchises). They have been consistently saying that they want to get it right and have been successful with most of the films they have produced, but I am not sure if they are confident with the others outside of Green Lantern and Justice League. Apparently it looks like they are featuring the DC Super Villains with Green Arrow in an ensemble cast in "Super Max" as another approach so we will see how that works out. I think we should trust them with the decisions they are making since the have all the experience (more so than Marvel) and know the best thing to do for themselves.

This wouldn't have been as much of a problem if WB had done a better job on their other super-hero franchises.

They have wasted every opportunity so far.

I think you might want to go back and look the past 30 years of DC super hero films. The have had fewer financial failures than Marvel.

Can't they use equipment from Nolan's Batman and other films for other comic franchises? Surely the equipment from TDK could be used on The Question, Birds of Prey, Kate Spencer Manhunter and Huntress movies.

I don't know. I think that version of Batman (along with his car and costume) might be copyrighted to that production company (Syncopy Films?). They would have to get permission from them (or whomever it is) before they could use it.

They can adapt cheaper DC franchises in the mean time.

They've got to have an idea that they can sell first.

When the prices go down JL will be there to make it.

Prices don't go down (remember, inflation).


It can also pay off big time.

There is no guarantee of that (its a 60:40 chance unless you have good info that it will sell).

Blade, Iron Man, X-men, Hellboy.

Why settle for only 2 successful super-hero franchises when they could have 4 or 6 or more?

Blade III, Ghost Rider, Hellboy II. It's not a surefire thing. It's smarter to feature the characters with your popular franchise characters and then see which ones stick. You can go with those in solo films and lower your risk of losing a lot of money.

[The Major]

It 's true that the Luthor character is getting a little trite, but as for short term gains it wasn't so much that but rather having an actor that could carry the film (meaning draw an audience).

Both Hackman and Kidder were in the film for that reason.

Agreed.

On that topic, they could (and maybe should) try to introduce new villains in a Superman sequel, but I think whomever is cast should be an A-list actor. Brandon Routh (although expected to be Superman) can not carry the film by himself.

Agreed.

I think both they (and DC) already have. They know what they want to adapt and they also know that these characters are relatively weak (compared to the Superman and Batman franchises).

I agree with what you’re saying but I don’t think the situation is as black and white as that.

Many of those characters haven’t gotten any exposure beyond being in comics. Others have been lucky to get cameos in tv shows like Smallville and JLU but it hasn’t gotten any of them cartoon/tv show spin-offs of their own or movies green lighted.

The top franchises have been in cartoons and tv shows over the years but none of them have been able to reach the potential creatively like in the comics. The most recent, WW and Flash, were decades ago. Technology and the tv medium has adapted enough to let these franchises get much closer to that potential in live action unlike back then.

Updates and exposure could make any of these franchises much stronger given the proper treatment. Especially the higher rung franchises like Green Lantern, Flash and WW.

They could also work on low budget direct to dvd/made for tv live action adaptions, too. They must be of quality, of course. This type of thing has to be shown possible with series like Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, Buffy and Angel. Of course this type of feature wouldn't have the quality or scope a big budget movie would but surely WB could make some decent adaptions here. Especially with street level heroes like Huntress, Black Canary, Kate Spencer Manhunter The Question. They should be able to make a decent Blue Beetle (Jaime Reyes or Ted Kord versions), Wonder Woman or The Demon though they would have to lower the power scale down naturally.

They’ll never not be weak until WB allows them to get stronger instead of just doing stuff with Batman and Superman. Those franchises are already rock solid. They’ll be fine taking a rest for a while. This could allow DC/WB to actually grow more franchises to equal them in success or build them up to be worthy franchises which can be successful just not on that scale.

They have been consistently saying that they want to get it right

Saying and doing are completely different things.

and have been successful with most of the films they have produced,

Most of their films have failed to produce a single new successful DC film franchise to match Batman and Superman. Those two have had serious mistakes, too.

but I am not sure if they are confident with the others outside of Green Lantern and Justice League.

See my previous response to the weak franchises.

Apparently it looks like they are featuring the DC Super Villains with Green Arrow in an ensemble cast in "Super Max" as another approach so we will see how that works out.

I hope that succeeds.

I think we should trust them with the decisions they are making since the have all the experience (more so than Marvel) and know the best thing to do for themselves.

That experience isn’t perfect. That said I do hope they keep on improving with each adaption and take the lessons learned from both successes and failures to move forward not backward with their new comic adaptions.

I think you might want to go back and look the past 30 years of DC super hero films. The have had fewer financial failures than Marvel.

They still have had a shaky relationship with Batman and Superman and haven't succeeded in making a third film franchise from DC.

Marvel has gotten Blade, Iron Man, X-men, Fantastic Four, Hulk and Spider-man franchises into being financially successes. They would still have had Blade and X-men if Fox didn’t make the franchises become persona non-grata with awful third movies, still they did well since the audience came in from the previous films good reputations.

That’s Marvel – 6, WB/DC – 2.

FF was awful but it still managed some financial success. If these movies had actually been good it might have been Spider-man level IMO.

DD did well enough to get a spin-off.

Punisher is on its third film, too.

I don't know. I think that version of Batman (along with his car and costume) might be copyrighted to that production company (Syncopy Films?).

Okay.

They would have to get permission from them (or whomever it is) before they could use it.

Makes sense.

They've got to have an idea that they can sell first.

You mean a script and/or director who wants to do it or the actual concept itself? If you mean the latter DC has no shortage of.

Prices don't go down (remember, inflation).

My mistake.

There is no guarantee of that

Their whole industry is about taking risks.

(its a 60:40 chance unless you have good info that it will sell).

How do they judge that, exactly? There can be so many variables with any movie.

Blade III, Ghost Rider, Hellboy II.

Didn't Blade 3 do extremely well in theatres? Isn't GR getting a sequel? Did Hellboy 2 make its money back? It had a lower budget then the first movie. I do agree it was a huge mistake to release it so close to TDK. It should do better on dvd IMO.

It's not a surefire thing. It's smarter to feature the characters with your popular franchise characters and then see which ones stick.

They need to rely just on movies for this.

Animated movies, direct to dvd projects and animated series could be used to introduce the public to lesser known franchises for potential future films.

It is long term strategy, of course.

Getting the public interested in a franchise is going to take time unless a successful movie gets made no matter what it is. It’s got to be cheaper then making a multimillion dollar movie, though.

You can go with those in solo films and lower your risk of losing a lot of money.

That tactic I like.

[KBX]

Lets face it, most people did not think Iron Man could make "Iron Man" kind of money. But Marvel Studios got fully behind the movie, got the right talent behind and in front of the camera and put a lot of care and quality into the product. Then they promoted the hell out of it. And the end result was a massive sucess.

WB could potentially have a big franchise in GL. But they have to be willing to fully throw themselves behind it and stop being so tentative. Don't half ass it, hire top quality for the film, stick to the material (no Jack Black spoof) and put their full support behind it. Because the general audience won't believe in the product unless the studio does first.

If they put the effort, care and quality into the film and then put a strong promotional campaign together, they could really be in store for another strong DC superhero franchise. Only WB's lack of imagination can hold back what can be done with the character of GL.

Marvel Studios can do that. Thats all they have, while WB has countless other movies than their DC characters. I seriously think the only reason they own the DC comics is for Bats and Sups. What makes Ironman, and Batman so easy to sell, well cause their down to earth, with problems an average person can have. Now with GL, your bosses is little blue men, and your main problem is an alien who has the exact same powers you do, just with the color of yellow. Dont get me wrong I think Hal, Kyle, and Jon are cool characters.

I really don't think the WB likes to have supernatural villians/aliens in their movie. When I think about it all the successful comic book movies out there never had an alien/supernatural character as the main villian.

Now, Flash well i can see where there can be less of a problem with this. But some people may think it may be hard for him to carry a movie by himself. I really don't know how to think about Flash, I mean yeah he suppose to be funny and run all day, but what else?

[KBX]

Do you think if JL fails it won't affect the other solo film franchises negatively?

It won't effect bats or sups. The others, well they can say, "YEAH, the solo movies are coming" and still 7 years little we are still waiting...



Those films aren't going to make be successful unless they're made.


Remember how Kilmer/Clooney bats supposedly killed the franchise, well Batman movies will always be there. Same as Bonds, etc. Now if a GL/Flash flops, there is a good chance we won't see another one for a very long time...


They'll still make Batman films no matter what.


Oh I agree


This wouldn't be as much of a problem had they bothered actually supporting these characters enough so the public will flock to their movies. They all have potential. They need to use cartoon series to get the public interested or at least to know the basics for films being made. Get a WW, GL, GA, Flash cartoon series in motion to build interest. They have to be good, of course. Bad cartoons would have the opposite effect.

In this era, what were DC most successful animated tv shows? You have Batman: TAS and Superman: TAS and one more.... wait for it.... wait for it... Justice League/JLU

WB either can't see it or can't be bothered making enough of an effort to get it right. They are slowly improving.

Improving on Batman franchise? yes... others? no so much...


They should be seeing it as an opportunity. A first step in a film franchise which could join Batman and Superman as it grows.

I agree, but no bats or sups in the DC comics universe, WB would not care at all. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if they sell some of these characters to other studios just as Marvel did, before they made it big.

There's no reason a franchise like that couldn't make Iron Man money in the sequels.

I dunno, I guess the potential, is there, but a lot has to go right, I mean near perfect...

[ray243]

Seriously, you fans sound so desperate...

I mean come on, what is wrong with waiting for a few more years until the movie comes out?

You guys have waited pretty long already!


Technically speaking, there is a JL tv movie in the 90s, and given that alot of you just want a JL film to come out, no matter how bad it will be...you can be happy with the tv movie.


You want the movie to be good, or do you want the movie to make money? Which is better?


Even though the batman movies will be made...a bad movie involving batman MEANS there will be a stall between the batman films.



Moreover, if the JL movie fails, what makes you think audience will still watch a character spin-off?


The X-men movie spin-off can work because the audience liked the x-men movies in the first place.


If the audience do not like it, forget about selling a spin-off.

[The Major]

Seriously, you fans sound so desperate...

Hollywood isn't desperate to make comic adaptions? Batman and Superman have been very good to WB's bottom line by themselves. They do come from the comic medium.

It's the same with Sony with Spider-man and Fox with X-men.

I mean come on, what is wrong with waiting for a few more years until the movie comes out?

I can wait for JL. It shouldn't stop WB from adapting lesser known cheaper franchises, though.

You guys have waited pretty long already!

We've waited this long because technology in Hollywood has finally started to catch up with the stories that can be made in comic books. They've also have gotten film makers who are talented enough and respect the source material. Many of the crappy adaptions don't do that.

It's Hollywood whose catching up to comics not the other way around.

They still have a long way to go, too.

Technically speaking, there is a JL tv movie in the 90s, and given that alot of you just want a JL film to come out,

We want a good JL movie to come out along with other franchises that Hollywood has taken to long getting around to.

Why should we be grateful to Hollywood for terrible adaptions like that JLA tv show pilot when we know they can do better?

no matter how bad it will be...you can be happy with the tv movie.

Have you paid attention to the posts here? A lot of people don't like Miller's JL because they fear it will be awful.

You want the movie to be good, or do you want the movie to make money? Which is better?

Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Sin City, the Spider-man trilogy, Superman 1 and 2, Batman '89, X-men 1 and 2, Blade 1 and 2, V for Vendetta, Hellboy, Iron Man, 300, Road to Perdition, Ghost World, American Splendor.

It's in Hollywood's best interest to make good adaptions. They tend to do well and comic books are full of stories and franchises which could do very well on screen if they are willing to make those franchises get to their potential.

Even though the batman movies will be made...a bad movie involving batman MEANS there will be a stall between the batman films.

Batman can take it.

Lesser franchises can't since WB still thinks one shot is all they need to know if a franchise can succeed or not. Even when they make crappy movies which don't come close to realizing its creative potential or it doesn't resemble the franchise at all. They need to really stop doing this.

Moreover, if the JL movie fails, what makes you think audience will still watch a character spin-off?

The public wouldn't have seen their potential on film yet.

WB has done this for Batman and Superman, they haven't for many others. The potential doesn't stop being there once you ignore it.

The X-men movie spin-off can work because the audience liked the x-men movies in the first place.

The X-men movies were well done which were quite faithful to the spirit of the comics. You do realize the characters it showed were from comics, right? Singer didn't make up the Wolverine character while shooting the movie.

Them being a quality movies is a huge factor in its success, too. They can make quality stories based on comics, you know. The medium is filled with them.

If the audience do not like it, forget about selling a spin-off.

Have you thought that maybe the audience could like the premise but the adaption is crappy? The audience won't like an adaption if Hollywood makes their premise unappealing because they can't do a good job showing its potential on screen.

[The Major]

It won't effect bats or sups. The others, well they can say, "YEAH, the solo movies are coming" and still 7 years little we are still waiting...

Exactly why I fear JL sucking. It's to big a risk to the other franchises.


Remember how Kilmer/Clooney bats supposedly killed the franchise, well Batman movies will always be there. Same as Bonds, etc. Now if a GL/Flash flops, there is a good chance we won't see another one for a very long time...

Yup.

Lack of vision really sucks.

In this era, what were DC most successful animated tv shows? You have Batman: TAS and Superman: TAS and one more.... wait for it.... wait for it... Justice League/JLU

WB needs to give their lesser franchises equal treatment to those in cartoons and tv shows. There's no reason a Wonder Woman, Flash or Green lantern animated series couldn't succeed with that in their corner.

Do you count Legion and Teen Titans cartoons as successful? They were pretty good.

Improving on Batman franchise? yes... others? no so much...

Watchmen looks good, but you're right it's still questionable whether they can do the same for the lesser franchises.

They have done very well with one shot story and non-super-hero adaptions like 300 and V for vendetta. Did WB make Sin City?

I agree, but no bats or sups in the DC comics universe, WB would not care at all. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if they sell some of these characters to other studios just as Marvel did, before they made it big.

I don't see that at all. With WB it seems with their DC properties if they can't make them no-one can.

I dunno, I guess the potential, is there, but a lot has to go right, I mean near perfect...

True.

Still, they should try their best. They should use that "hundred years experience in the movie biz" I keep hearing about.

[The Major]

Marvel Studios can do that. Thats all they have,

They can do licensed material. They have done this regularly over the decades in the comics.

Marvel has had relationships with other licensed properties like The Dark Tower, Red Sonja, Conan, Shadow, Doc Savage, G.I. Joe, Anita Blake and more.

No reason they can't do this with films in the future.

while WB has countless other movies than their DC characters.

Marvel is the only comic company I know of which has a library of characters close to it in volume.

I seriously think the only reason they own the DC comics is for Bats and Sups.

Agreed.

What makes Ironman, and Batman so easy to sell, well cause their down to earth, with problems an average person can have.

Batman and Iron Man are far form the only characters in either company who people can relate to. They're the tip of the iceberg. If other characters got that kind of treatment in movies they'd be just as well known. In fact it wasn't that long ago that Iron Man was one of them.

Now with GL, your bosses is little blue men, and your main problem is an alien who has the exact same powers you do, just with the color of yellow. Dont get me wrong I think Hal, Kyle, and Jon are cool characters.

You're over thinking this. Don't think of it in terms of being alien and cosmic. There's more depth to it then that which could appeal to normal people.

The Guardians are hardcore control freaks with god complexes who always think they're right. I'm sure people have had bosses like this or know overzealous people who use this behavior.

Sinestro's a good cop gone bad. He believes he's doing the right thing but who has questionable methods in protecting everybody. That type of thing is very relevant in today's era with the Bush administration just like TDK did. He could also be compared to Denzel Washington's character in Training Day.

I really don't think the WB likes to have supernatural villians/aliens in their movie.

Which is really short sighted. All it takes is a good version to show the public. Having super-natural villains didn't stop Buffy or Xena being successful. WB has access to people who can make this happen.

Superman is an alien. They don't seem to have a problem with him.

When I think about it all the successful comic book movies out there never had an alien/supernatural character as the main villian.

How about Rasputin and the Elder Gods in Hellboy?

Zod was a great villain in Superman 2. He was an alien.

Now, Flash well i can see where there can be less of a problem with this. But some people may think it may be hard for him to carry a movie by himself.

Why?

I really don't know how to think about Flash, I mean yeah he suppose to be funny and run all day, but what else?

Depends on the Flash you're talking about. It's a fascinating and complex mythos with many great characters in it.

Here's some basic information about the Flash franchise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_%28comics%29

[Dark Knight]

That's a bunch of baloney. Batman has survived the criticism of "Batman and Robin" and well as "Catwoman". It's just a baseless supposition that it would be affected by a bad Justice League film (if there is such a thing with Batman Supeman and Wonder Woman in it). You have not proof that that is the case.



Dude, why did you avoid solidsnakes question?

[Dark Knight]

It's posts like these that make you look like a joke.



http://www.superherohype.com/news/spider-mannews.php?id=7573


And I love how you write "has only made $406 mil". And do you think TDK's run at the BO is over? Guess what, news gets much worse for you, because it is predicted this film is headed towards $500 mil!

Your posts truly are a joke, first cookies and now trying to mouth off when you yourself don't know the facts.



It's a waste of time and energy talking to this dnno1 guy.

He is out of it....:o

[Dark Knight]

If dnno1 is out of his element and does not know what he is talking about, than how do you know for a fact that 1 movie will make more than another movie that has not even hit the theaters yet? Sure you can predict and I personally think Miller is a pretty good director. Im more than willing to give the guy every opportunity especially when we truly know nothing about this project.

As you said if its all about money than its smart for WB to make both the batman sequel AND JL.



You know its a mediocre movie? Thank you so I don't have to waste my money on it. This movie could out in 2010, but I think it may be 2011.

So let me get this straight, if somehow this movie gets made, and they use a Batman. Bale, Hammer, someone else doesn't matter. And they use him in a few scenes, not as many as the other characters, that will make TDK sequel lose 100 million, possibly more at the box-office? come on now.



Mediocre compared to TDK?

Yep! I'll put my money on a Nolan directed Batman movie with Bale as Batman against a director who hasn't done a live action film in god knows how long with someone named Armie and Hammer as Batman.

Since TDK has become a BIG success with fans, critically AND with the Box Office...I am VERY confident that Millers JLA movie with Arm and Hammer and DJ Corona would not be able to compete with TDK.

[Webhead2006]

YEa hopefully with what TDK has done for wb they are really looking into make jla a whole new film and drop miller and go in an all new and hopefully better direction.

[Dark Knight]

Seriously, you fans sound so desperate...

I mean come on, what is wrong with waiting for a few more years until the movie comes out?

You guys have waited pretty long already!


Technically speaking, there is a JL tv movie in the 90s, and given that alot of you just want a JL film to come out, no matter how bad it will be...you can be happy with the tv movie.


You want the movie to be good, or do you want the movie to make money? Which is better?


Even though the batman movies will be made...a bad movie involving batman MEANS there will be a stall between the batman films.



Moreover, if the JL movie fails, what makes you think audience will still watch a character spin-off?


The X-men movie spin-off can work because the audience liked the x-men movies in the first place.


If the audience do not like it, forget about selling a spin-off.



Nah....dnno1 sounds desperate....

[BATZARRO WWD]

Mediocre compared to TDK?

Yep! I'll put my money on a Nolan directed Batman movie with Bale as Batman against a director who hasn't done a live action film in god knows how long with someone named Armie and Hammer as Batman.

Since TDK has become a BIG success with fans, critically AND with the Box Office...I am VERY confident that Millers JLA movie with Arm and Hammer and DJ Corona would not be able to compete with TDK.

And Watchmen has a guy called Billy Crudup. That doesn't mean proper marketing and hype can't outdo funny/unknown names and propell a movie to a new B.O record.

[Showtime]

Nor does it mean it will though, the argument works two ways. You're challenging the detractors, but it is totally unknown that the film will do well. It is the same difference if you ask me. A lot of you are like, yeah you put Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and some other characters together and it is a hit. That isn't necessarily true. One of the execs said the same thing about Superman Returns, look what happened.

[KBX]

Mediocre compared to TDK?

Yep! I'll put my money on a Nolan directed Batman movie with Bale as Batman against a director who hasn't done a live action film in god knows how long with someone named Armie and Hammer as Batman.

Since TDK has become a BIG success with fans, critically AND with the Box Office...I am VERY confident that Millers JLA movie with Arm and Hammer and DJ Corona would not be able to compete with TDK.

If a JL film has yet to come out, how do you know its going to be mediocre???

I am not comparing TDK to a possible JL film. I don't get where people are getting this. There is no competition here, and never will be between the two movies. When one ends the other one will start. Give or take a year.

Many people were confident that Jackmans Wolverine and Tobeys Spiderman weren't going to compete with anyone, and looked how that turned out. For all we know Hammer/Cotrona even though they are not my choices, could do a very good job. Clooney I think can be a better bats than Bale if he had Nolan.

Look, I loved TDK, but its not the end-all be-all, of comicbook movies, nor it will ever be.

[solidsnake86]

Well I think whoever mentioned the part about Gl's bosses being little blue men has a point and I think that is why they are being a bit more cautious. I know people say GL could be their Iron Man but I don't really think so. Iron Man is more marvel's batman if anything. I think a good comparison would be thor to GL. With green latern they have to decide how far out their they want the movie to be, either keep it contained on earth for a first movie with glimpses of whats out their or go full out space epic.

The flash also has some problems, namely which character do you use, wally west or barry allen. Barry allen has the whole CSI angle which is extremely popular whereas wally has the personality that it seems most (or few depending on who you talk to)enjoy. Just as a side note their bringing him (barry allen) back in the comics for those that don't
know.

Wonder woman has the problem of being a female heroine with movies like elektra that don't bode well for her character. To make it work I would use a smaller budget like hellboy that way their expectation aren't overblown and if it doesn't do well they will not have lost so much money.

I guess each of these characters is a problem in their own right and I can see why making a JL movie is on their minds because you gloss over the problems each character has if their in an individual series.

[dnno1]

I'm suspicious that dnno1 could perhaps be Baghdad Uncle Bingo Bob back from the dead.

Sorry, I have read his stuff, but I don't even know the guy.

[The Major]

Well I think whoever mentioned the part about Gl's bosses being little blue men has a point and I think that is why they are being a bit more cautious.

Having aliens didn't stop Star Wars from being a hit.

It's all about the execution and whether they can make it relatable. There is enough material there to do this for GL.

I know people say GL could be their Iron Man but I don't really think so. Iron Man is more marvel's batman if anything. I think a good comparison would be thor to GL. With green latern they have to decide how far out their they want the movie to be, either keep it contained on earth for a first movie with glimpses of whats out their or go full out space epic.

Personally, I think they should keep the first movie on Earth and avoid having to much alien stuff stuff in it immediately but set it up for sequels.

They should definitely use Sinestro as the first bad guy.

The flash also has some problems, namely which character do you use, wally west or barry allen. Barry allen has the whole CSI angle which is extremely popular whereas wally has the personality that it seems most (or few depending on who you talk to)enjoy. Just as a side note their bringing him (barry allen) back in the comics for those that don't
know.

Yup.

Wonder woman has the problem of being a female heroine with movies like elektra that don't bode well for her character.

WB really needs to think beyond the gender issue. Being the same sex of the character in a failed movie which was critically panned and which didn't show the potential of the franchise it's adapting doesn't work.


To make it work I would use a smaller budget like hellboy that way their expectation aren't overblown and if it doesn't do well they will not have lost so much money.

Agreed.

I guess each of these characters is a problem in their own right and I can see why making a JL movie is on their minds because you gloss over the problems each character has if their in an individual series.

All adaptions have problems. Some are easier to fix then others but if they get the right film makers in change who understand and respect what they're adapting these can be solved.

[solidsnake86]

I'm not to sure about using sinestro in the first one, wasn't he a green latern to begin with. I'm not very familiar with the characters origin so someone would have to fill me in. I know the basic about alien crash landing, ends up passing away and gives ring to hal, but thats pretty much it.

[The Major]

SS:

Sinestro being a Green Lantern is why it makes sense for him to be Hal's first villain.

Basically he was the GLC's best Lantern before Hal came along. He trained Hal in how to be a GL. The thing is Sinestro believes order matters above all else. He'll do whatever he needs to preserve the universe, unfortunately he's a controlling psychopath. At home he's secretly a dictator that's why it's so "peaceful" there. Once Hal discovered this he alerted the Guardians who exiled him. This lead to events where he created a yellow GL type ring, made him become Hal's arch-enemy, allowed him to set Hal up to be possessed by Parallax and form the Sinestro Corps.

In the comics he does this to prepare the universe against a prophecy called the Blackest Night. The Guardians want to stop it from occurring but Sinestro knows it is impossible to do, kinda like when Skynet turns against humanity in Terminator. His methods are brutal in order to manipulate the Guardians to force them into dealing with the prophecy on his terms.

Hal and Sinestro have since gotten into a Clarice/Hannibal Lecter relationship in Johns' run.

This has some more detailed information about him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinestro

[solidsnake86]

Thanks Major, that sounds really interesting, and would make a great movie. I'm just wondering though, if sinestro was used in a sequel what other villains could be used in the first movie. I know they are doing the secret origin story that Johns is writing write now, I wanted to take a look at it. I wonder who the main villain in that story is, or if they do the whole sinestro story within the first one.

[The Major]

SS:

The main villain is Atrocitus, I guess. He's got a much more complicated back story then Sinestro. The story does have several villains in it in lesser roles like Hector Hammond and Black Hand.

At this point of the story Sinestro is Hal's partner and is his mentor. They're investigating Abin Sur's death together on Earth. Abin was murdered by Atrocitus and who gave Hal his ring.

Atrocious would fit a sequel, IMO. There is a lot of information the audience will need to know about for him to work.

Sinestro being the first villain doesn't mean he should be killed in the first movie, either. He should be like the GL franchise's Magneto.

I recommend getting the story arc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocitus

[solidsnake86]

I'm going to pick up the issues when action comics comes out next week as well. It sounds really interesting and I'm hoping the writers of the movie can do the character justice. In terms of sinestro I see your point of him being the magneto of the series. Thanks again for the synopsis.

[Dark Knight]

Having aliens didn't stop Star Wars from being a hit.

It's all about the execution and whether they can make it relatable. There is enough material there to do this for GL.



Personally, I think they should keep the first movie on Earth and avoid having to much alien stuff stuff in it immediately but set it up for sequels.

They should definitely use Sinestro as the first bad guy.



Yup.



WB really needs to think beyond the gender issue. Being the same sex of the character in a failed movie which was critically panned and which didn't show the potential of the franchise it's adapting doesn't work.




Agreed.



All adaptions have problems. Some are easier to fix then others but if they get the right film makers in change who understand and respect what they're adapting these can be solved.



Another movie of reference that can used besides Star Wars is perhaps Luc Bessons The Fifth Element....

[dark_b]

Another movie of reference that can used besides Star Wars is perhaps Luc Bessons The Fifth Element....it was a light movie. if GL would have the same tone then it would work. if it would have the same tone everyone would complain IMO


its not so easie with aliens. star wars is something different. when it came out it was groudnbreaking.

[Antonello Blueberry]

Nor does it mean it will though, the argument works two ways. You're challenging the detractors, but it is totally unknown that the film will do well. It is the same difference if you ask me. A lot of you are like, yeah you put Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and some other characters together and it is a hit. That isn't necessarily true. One of the execs said the same thing about Superman Returns, look what happened.
It happened a movie, that with its flaws made 400 millions worldwide, more athn Batman begins and than most of the other comic book adaptations. Moreover in JL we were supposed to see Superman beating the crap out of Wonder Woman and Batman. They could have Michel Cera as Batman, Sarah Silverman as WW and jack Black as Supes and people will still flock the theaters to see it.

[thcapedcrusader]

i think i speak of all of us, and i am sure it's been stated already but...i hope they don't screw this up.

[Showtime]

It happened a movie, that with its flaws made 400 millions worldwide, more athn Batman begins and than most of the other comic book adaptations. Moreover in JL we were supposed to see Superman beating the crap out of Wonder Woman and Batman. They could have Michel Cera as Batman, Sarah Silverman as WW and jack Black as Supes and people will still flock the theaters to see it.

It performed below studio and analysts projections and Batman Begins made more domestically, in other words, where it counts. I'm not saying it was a failure at all, but it wasn't what it should have or what it was supposed to be.

In regards to Justice League, you can't be serious. For you to think they can just put any version of these characters on screen and they will accept it is pretty bold.

See Batman & Robin and Catwoman.

[dnno1]

Nolan's Batman movies weren't only successful because Batman was [in] it. That was just one piece of the puzzle. Once they notice which tactics worked then they can duplicate it with versions which fit other non-Batman films. Studio execs taking over just to exploit short term lowest common denominator plans will just revert whatever progress Nolan's made with Batman. The money train will end and they'll have only themselves to blame.

I think they already knew what would work. This artilce from WebTVWire.com (http://www.webtvwire.com/batman-the-dark-knight-movie-how-warner-bros-stopped-film-leaking-to-internet/?comments=1) explains part of it all. Another strategy was the (premeditated) viral marketing campaign that was run a year prior. This is not to mention the fact that Batman already has a avid fan base that belived in the the director and the direction the film was going in.

[Antonello Blueberry]

It performed below studio and analysts projections and Batman Begins made more domestically, in other words, where it counts. I'm not saying it was a failure at all, but it wasn't what it should have or what it was supposed to be.
When Warner distributes the movie itself in every nation, domestic or foreign has the same weight.


In regards to Justice League, you can't be serious. For you to think they can just put any version of these characters on screen and they will accept it is pretty bold.

See Batman & Robin and Catwoman.
I'm serious. We're talking of three of the most widely known superheroes worldwide, not only in the same movie but fighting each other. It's something never before seen.
Batman & Robin was the campy version of Batman forever, had some really crappy trailers, but still opened at 42 million $ with an average per screen of $14,612, more than the average of the opening of BB.
It was killed by word of mouth because it was really terrible.
I won't even bother writing about Catwoman which had failure written all over it since it was announced and I feel sorry for Pitof for killing his career by making it.

[GreenKToo]

If he is correct here, the casting was one of the reasons J.L. got delayed. Can you imagine the outrage if they went with even worse casting?

http://jam.canoe.ca/Movies/Artists/B/Baruchel_Jay/2008/07/25/6265051-sun.html

Baruchel -- who won't reveal what role he'd signed for, although rumours had him pegged as one of the villains -- was in Australia last December rehearsing when Warner Bros. unceremoniously banished the production to a purgatorial phantom zone. Among probable reasons why? The toxic buzz the League movie -- despite being helmed by The Road Warrior's legendary George Miller -- was generating online.
With neither big-screen Batman Christian Bale nor Superman Brandon Routh on-board, fanboys balked at the decision to recast young unknowns as those spandex-clad icons. "Everyone on the Internet was hating our movie," Baruchel says. "But you know us cast members were psyched that everybody was gunning for us because it would have only meant people would have been blown away that much more. We knew the bulk of the detractors would have been silenced."

[Showtime]

When Warner distributes the movie itself in every nation, domestic or foreign has the same weight.

Which means they are the ones flipping the bill for everything; foreign advertising in all countries, foreign prints, foreign taxes, currency conversion, and foreign trade associations.

It is far from an advantage to distribute the film alone. So although it might carry the same weight if a studio is a lone distributor, it also puts a bigger burden on the lone distributor.

I'm serious. We're talking of three of the most widely known superheroes worldwide, not only in the same movie but fighting each other. It's something never before seen.

That's disappointing, I thought you were a "movie guy", you're saying throw anybody in the suits and it will make money?

[Antonello Blueberry]

Which means they are the ones flipping the bill for everything; foreign advertising in all countries, foreign prints, foreign taxes, currency conversion, and foreign trade associations.

It is far from an advantage to distribute the film alone. So although it might carry the same weight if a studio is a lone distributor, it also puts a bigger burden on the lone distributor.
Ever heard of globalization? Warner Bros spending millions of dollars in advertising in USA means that all the newspapers in the world will talk about that movie. The marketing campaign are thought globally, with some minor local adjustment.
For example WB didn't spend that much in Italy for the launch of "The Dark Knight" because they knew that Batman movies do not make great money here and the summer releases don't either. So they didn't invest that much here hoping the press and word of mouth coming from the USA will sell the movie.
It's making Iron Man numbers, half the "I am legend" money.


That's disappointing, I thought you were a "movie guy", you're saying throw anybody in the suits and it will make money?
Well, I work in a production company. I used to be a critic, so maybe I am a "movie" guy.
I think the concept (and the storyline they choosed to adapt) is so strong that it could be a success, no matter the actors.
The Miller version was going to be visually interesting, with Semler, Patterson and WETA on board, and with those elements a trailer at least would have been great looking. That would have shut all the bad buzz about the Teen League.
Sure they could have been more clever in casting the big two, so avoiding most of the bad buzz.
See how many people were won over by the Watchmen trailer just because it looks good.

[BATZARRO WWD]

Ever heard of globalization? Warner Bros spending millions of dollars in advertising in USA means that all the newspapers in the world will talk about that movie. The marketing campaign are thought globally, with some minor local adjustment.
For example WB didn't spend that much in Italy for the launch of "The Dark Knight" because they knew that Batman movies do not make great money here and the summer releases don't either. So they didn't invest that much here hoping the press and word of mouth coming from the USA will sell the movie.
It's making Iron Man numbers, half the "I am legend" money.


Well, I work in a production company. I used to be a critic, so maybe I am a "movie" guy.
I think the concept (and the storyline they choosed to adapt) is so strong that it could be a success, no matter the actors.
The Miller version was going to be visually interesting, with Semler, Patterson and WETA on board, and with those elements a trailer at least would have been great looking. That would have shut all the bad buzz about the Teen League.
Sure they could have been more clever in casting the big two, so avoiding most of the bad buzz.
See how many people were won over by the Watchmen trailer just because it looks good.

Yeah, I've only read about Watchmen, and the trailer says little about the actuall plot, but just showing the thing does wonders. Off course casting matters, but concept also matters.

Here's an example:

Actors:Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones
Concept: Secret Alien alien conspiracy action + Buddy movie

Actors: Will Smith, Matt Damon
Concept: Golf teaching ghost

Guess wich one did better at the box office? In the case of "Bagger Vance" the concept was enought to overpower a strong, known cast. Even word of mouth couldn't save it.

However, I think we should agree the concept of Justice League would at least warrant a pretty good level of attention. Now, the hardly known/young cast is less than an issue that it apears to be if they'd chosen certain celebrities that actually bring movies down.

[The Major]

I think they already knew what would work. This artilce from WebTVWire.com (http://www.webtvwire.com/batman-the-dark-knight-movie-how-warner-bros-stopped-film-leaking-to-internet/?comments=1) explains part of it all. Another strategy was the (premeditated) viral marketing campaign that was run a year prior.

As I said Batman is only one reason why it worked.

They need to apply the same or similar ideas to fit the other franchises they're adapting when they get their own solo films.

This is not to mention the fact that Batman already has a avid fan base that belived in the the director and the direction the film was going in.

WB needs to use their resources to allow their lesser comic franchises to have the same build in support. They definitely need to show why Hollywood should be interested in adapting their own comic franchises.

[The Major]

I'm serious. We're talking of three of the most widely known superheroes worldwide, not only in the same movie but fighting each other. It's something never before seen.

Yet they've only been interested in making cartoons, tv shows (with one exception 30 years ago) and movies about 2 of them.

Batman & Robin was the campy version of Batman forever, had some really crappy trailers, but still opened at 42 million $ with an average per screen of $14,612, more than the average of the opening of BB.
Just imagine how much more successful it could have been if WB had bothered making a good movie which positively elevated the Batman franchise.

All that potential profit down the tubes because WB wanted to see Adam West with nipples on the silver screen.

It was killed by word of mouth because it was really terrible.

Yup.


I won't even bother writing about Catwoman which had failure written all over it since it was announced and I feel sorry for Pitof for killing his career by making it.

A better reason would be that the movie was in no way, shape or form related to Catwoman aside from the title.

[The Major]

They could have Michel Cera as Batman, Sarah Silverman as WW and jack Black as Supes and people will still flock the theaters to see it.

Isn't it good business sense to get the most potential out of a product not the least?

A JLA movie like that would only damage WW's image for another generation, it'll distort how the public sees her furthur and the lesser characters killing any interest in solo franchises and make it that much tougher for WB to sell them in serious solo movies in the future. Right now none of them have even got a solo movie green lighted yet.

The only ones immune for that are Superman and Batman because unlike the others WB actually spend time educating the public about their mythos and gave them enough good works for people to care.

If the others had that support a parody movie would be fine since they the audience would realize that's not how the characters are supposed to act.