Official Justice League Status Update Thread

[Timstuff]

I am merely saying that stuff is outdated for major motion pictures released in theatres. It still has its place though.

While I would agree that DC's DTV efforts lack the production values to receive theatrical releases (had that been what you said), I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that 2D animation too "outdated" to be used in theatrical releases. 2D and 3D are two seperate mediums, and one is not necessarily better than the other. Although personally, I think in the rush to put out glitzy CG movies, a lot of studios have lost sight of what made the great 2D animated movies special. It's not about the medium, but rather how the filmmakers choose to utilize it.

[Lestat74]

I don't see Wonder Woman being made. Flash I can see being made if GL is huge, which it will be if it's made.....but WW.....just not sure how she can translate to film and even if she's done well, women heroins............or how ever you spell it, just don't do well at the BO.

I'm not saying Wonder Woman wouldn't have a tough time being a hit, but just beause she is a woman doesn't mean it can't happen....for every Catwoman, Elektra and Aen Flux there has been a Charlie's Angels, Tomb Raider, Kill Bill and Underworld. Not to mention, Wonder Woman is the most recognizable female hero of all time. She is an icon. Just wait till Halloween...you see as many Wonder Woman out there as Witches and Fairies. EVERYONE knows who she is, even when they know little about her.

All Warners has to do is look at the recent animated film as a template, and the Wonder Woman movie should do just fine. Also...if Warners is smart and they are planning Green Lantern, Flash and WW as a build up towards Justice League, then should MARKET IT that way. Drop the first hints of a future JLA in Green Lantern...then, say, with the first Flash trailer, have a tagline that says COMING IN 2012 (or whenever) and then in that same trailer, after all that, have a tagline that says...AND IN 2013 JUSTICE LEAGUE with all the hero's logos together. Make it seem as if to be on the ground floor of JL you NEED to see Flash and Wonder Woman. And that way no one will miss it.

[Webhead2006]

well even if thats the plan to get to jl we are still many years away from happening. First we need gl to be a good hit, then a flash film to be made, a ww film to be made, what ever is going to happen with superman. At this rate jl is probably still 7+ yrs off. More so if said characters cant get off the bloody ground.

[FlawlessVictory]

So pretty much the fan consensus is that they'll be shocked if any DC superhero gets a movie other than Batman, Superman, or Green Lantern. Personally, I predict a lot of shocking in the future.

I'm still in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp when it comes to GL, so just imagine how I feel about Flash, WW and especially Justice League. :wow:

[Blackman]

Agreed. I doubt JLA happens during the tenure of Reynolds and Bale
I've been doubting Bale's involvement since TDK for some reason.
Reynolds MAYBE they can get him to be GL in a crossover JL film.

To me (I dont know the politics) by they are making it alot complicated then it has to be

I'm still in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp when it comes to GL, so just imagine how I feel about Flash, WW and especially Justice League. :wow:
GL I think is at least somewhat believeable because at least they have a lead. A HUGE lead matter of fact who I think WB is very intent on keeping in their grasps

[dnno1]

I'm not saying Wonder Woman wouldn't have a tough time being a hit, but just beause she is a woman doesn't mean it can't happen....for every Catwoman, Elektra and Aen Flux there has been a Charlie's Angels, Tomb Raider, Kill Bill and Underworld. Not to mention, Wonder Woman is the most recognizable female hero of all time. She is an icon. Just wait till Halloween...you see as many Wonder Woman out there as Witches and Fairies. EVERYONE knows who she is, even when they know little about her.

You also forgot to mention "Supergirl", "Red Sonja", "Tank Girl", "Barbwire", "Ultraviolet", "Brenda Star", "My Super Ex-Girlfriend", "Sheena: Queen of the Jungle" and "Barbarella". That would mean that those types of films have a less than 25% success rate. That's pretty risky if you want to put up $180 million to produce a major tentpole film. Now, on the other hand it is not that much so if you are talking low budget (like "Underworld), but I know that is not what you are talking about.

All Warners has to do is look at the recent animated film as a template, and the Wonder Woman movie should do just fine. Also...if Warners is smart and they are planning Green Lantern, Flash and WW as a build up towards Justice League, then should MARKET IT that way. Drop the first hints of a future JLA in Green Lantern...then, say, with the first Flash trailer, have a tagline that says COMING IN 2012 (or whenever) and then in that same trailer, after all that, have a tagline that says...AND IN 2013 JUSTICE LEAGUE with all the hero's logos together. Make it seem as if to be on the ground floor of JL you NEED to see Flash and Wonder Woman. And that way no one will miss it.

You're trying to suggest that they use the success of an animated video that only sold about a quarter of a million copies at best to make a major motion picture that will probably need more like 20 million viewres for pay for it? Seriously, stop before this gets worse.

[SurgeonGirl]

What we need is a Flash that actually looks like a runner.

[Webhead2006]

that would be a smart move, we dont need a jacked up guy(super roid body i mean) for flash.

[Lestat74]

You also forgot to mention "Supergirl", "Red Sonja", "Tank Girl", "Barbwire", "Ultraviolet", "Brenda Star", "My Super Ex-Girlfriend", "Sheena: Queen of the Jungle" and "Barbarella". That would mean that those types of films have a less than 25% success rate. That's pretty risky if you want to put up $180 million to produce a major tentpole film. Now, on the other hand it is not that much so if you are talking low budget (like "Underworld), but I know that is not what you are talking about.



You're trying to suggest that they use the success of an animated video that only sold about a quarter of a million copies at best to make a major motion picture that will probably need more like 20 million viewres for pay for it? Seriously, stop before this gets worse.

Telling me to "stop before it gets worse" is saying I have no valid points to make, so if you REALLY wanted me to drop it.... probably not the smartest thing to say. Why not just say "woman, shut up!" It seems you are very comfortable with women knowing their place in the male dominated genre, and any attempts to "come out of the kitchen" so to speak are fool hardy and pointless. To which is say F THAT. Change doesn't come until someone does it right.

In any event, No..I did not mention Sheena, Red Sonja, Barb Wire, etc. Mostly because I was focusing on more recent fare, which has a better track record. And I have a theory on why all of those movies failed, and I don't think it has much to do with the female leads. To me, it's simple: MOST of those movies used sex (or the suggestion of sex) to sell to the male audience. Guys don't go for this, because they have porn for that (especially nowadays) Women don't go for it, because they find they objectification of the women objectionable. So it ends up dead in the water with no real demographic to appeal to. If the studios treat their female action vehicles as nothing but camp or disposable T&A stuff, how can they be shocked at their Box Office outcome? Make the fact that she is a woman incidental to the spectacle (like in Aliens) and not have her boobs and ass be the spectacle itself. Because that NEVER works.

And I'm saying use the template of the scipt used for the animated film as a basis for the live action. Yes, I am fully aware the DTV animated film have a limited audience. Nevertheless, I believe that particular movie got the best reviews of ALL the animated DC films, many which pointed out this is take that a live action Wonder Woman film needs. That is what I'm saying here.

Yes, a live action Wonder Woman film is risky, which is why you need to do it RIGHT. I'm not saying they break the bank on it, but done right at the very least you get a $140 million + Incredible Hulk style "dissapointment", or you get a bona fide smash hit. Either/or would be a better intro to Wonder Woman than just the "chick character" in the JLA movie.

[Retroman]

A bit of useless trivia on Miller's Justice League. Australian stunt performer Kyle Gardiner (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1554347/) was Superman's stunt double during pre production rehearsals.

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/3692/mv5bmtu1njg2mtm2nf5b.jpg
Knowing (full time) Assistant Stunt Coordinator Stunt coord: Chris Anderson
Justice League of America Superman stunt double pre production Stunt coord: Guy Norris
Push (full time) Stunt Rigger/Stunt performer Stunt coord: Nick Powell
Source (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1554347/resume)

[Docker2.0]

Read my next post. It makes sense. :o

[Docker2.0]

Telling me to "stop before it gets worse" is saying I have no valid points to make, so if you REALLY wanted me to drop it.... probably not the smartest thing to say. Why not just say "woman, shut up!" It seems you are very comfortable with women knowing their place in the male dominated genre, and any attempts to "come out of the kitchen" so to speak are fool hardy and pointless. To which is say F THAT. Change doesn't come until someone does it right.

In any event, No..I did not mention Sheena, Red Sonja, Barb Wire, etc. Mostly because I was focusing on more recent fare, which has a better track record. And I have a theory on why all of those movies failed, and I don't think it has much to do with the female leads. To me, it's simple: MOST of those movies used sex (or the suggestion of sex) to sell to the male audience. Guys don't go for this, because they have porn for that (especially nowadays) Women don't go for it, because they find they objectification of the women objectionable. So it ends up dead in the water with no real demographic to appeal to. If the studios treat their female action vehicles as nothing but camp or disposable T&A stuff, how can they be shocked at their Box Office outcome? Make the fact that she is a woman incidental to the spectacle (like in Aliens) and not have her boobs and ass be the spectacle itself. Because that NEVER works.

And I'm saying use the template of the scipt used for the animated film as a basis for the live action. Yes, I am fully aware the DTV animated film have a limited audience. Nevertheless, I believe that particular movie got the best reviews of ALL the animated DC films, many which pointed out this is take that a live action Wonder Woman film needs. That is what I'm saying here.

Yes, a live action Wonder Woman film is risky, which is why you need to do it RIGHT. I'm not saying they break the bank on it, but done right at the very least you get a $140 million + Incredible Hulk style "dissapointment", or you get a bona fide smash hit. Either/or would be a better intro to Wonder Woman than just the "chick character" in the JLA movie.

Some of those movies you named are recent. :huh: I'm all for a WW movie, though I wouldn't see it myself becuase her comics are confusing enough, let alone a movie, but if it makes comic fan kingdom happy then it's cool. But WW comics have not been doing good in years, which is why she's always getting rebooted becuase she's a tough sell. She just isn't that popular as some people make her out to be. Becuase of her tv show, she's a icon and well known but that is not the same as being popular. If you wanted to do a female superhero movie from the DC universe, I say reboot Supergirl(not sure how she'd do either), or do a lesser known project with a smaller budget like Vixen or Zatanna a la Smallville becuase no way would a WW bring in over $100 million becuase we all know that with the movie directors today, a super hero on a island of ALL women will have sexual themes, not only with men but girl/girl play as well which will kill the kiddies going. All I'm basically saying is that it's hard to get her right in a comic book, imagine trying to make a big budget movie with her. I think the Justice League cartoon got it right with her. She wasn't introduced til the cartoon started, whereas Flash and GL were introduced in either the Superman or Batman cartoon. If the JLA movie is made, she'd probably be better off introduced in it.

[cerealkiller182]

I've been doubting Bale's involvement since TDK for some reason.
Reynolds MAYBE they can get him to be GL in a crossover JL film.

To me (I dont know the politics) by they are making it alot complicated then it has to be

I think in order for Reynolds to be a part of it Green lantern has to do for JLA what Iron Man did for Avengers which is get the ball rolling. Its possible, but WB despite creating DC entertainment, hiring writers, and actually moving forward with some lesser known properties seem to still be incredibly coy about JLA and the more marquee superhero flicks.

[Docker2.0]

GL is going to be huge just IM was and Cap will be becuase it hasn't been done before. I think people get tired of seeing the same heroes on the screen all the time which DC/WB has to understand. Flash will be huge as well. I'd love for them to make a Plastic Man movie with his main villian, The Weed to be included. I can imagine that villian blowing up big time becuase so many people battle "the weed" daily but he defeats them every time and they have to hit it.

[Webhead2006]

i do really hope wit h the change dc is going through will finally make us fans get some more bigger gun characters of the dc world.

[Blackman]

I think in order for Reynolds to be a part of it Green lantern has to do for JLA what Iron Man did for Avengers which is get the ball rolling. Its possible, but WB despite creating DC entertainment, hiring writers, and actually moving forward with some lesser known properties seem to still be incredibly coy about JLA and the more marquee superhero flicks.
this is true

[Antonello Blueberry]

Really, A JL movie could be used as a test for the popularity of Wonder Woman. If they're unsure about her selling a movie, how the character gets received in the JL movie could make WB make up their minds about making the solo movie. Something like
Justice League Origins: Wonder Woman

[Webhead2006]

well that is what they probably were going to go for ww/flash/aquaman (possible mm too) if jlm did happen. But since we know now we are not going to get a jl any time soon. Its back to solo routes i guess.

[cerealkiller182]

Really, A JL movie could be used as a test for the popularity of Wonder Woman. If they're unsure about her selling a movie, how the character gets received in the JL movie could make WB make up their minds about making the solo movie. Something like
Justice League Origins: Wonder Woman

I know you are going off of the studios trend so far, but frankly I would think in order to get JLA off the ground as a crossover a Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and Flash movie would need to happen first ideally using JLA as a platform to test Aquaman, Martian MAnhunter, and whoever else they plan on using.

[Antonello Blueberry]

They've been trying unseuccessfully to bring Wonder Woman to the screen again for years, there was also a TV series in active development years ago (I think Nicola Scott auditioned for the role). Maybe this would be the only way to have Wonder Woman on screen again. After all, Superman, Batman and soon Green Lantern would have been introduced to the movie audience. If they plan to use the JL:M script they can introduce the Barry Allen Flash in a solo movie and then kill him the group flick.

[Venom'sDad]

I have always thought that JLA needed to be shot first to help launch some of DC's other heros solo flicks. This not Marvel's Avengers, where that situation is needed. DC/WB are having problems getting films launch. Superman, for christ-sake, is having issues.

[Blackman]

I have always thought that JLA needed to be shot first to help launch some of DC's other heros solo flicks. This not Marvel's Avengers, where that situation is needed. DC/WB are having problems getting films launch. Superman, for christ-sake, is having issues.
I mean but Superman's issues are a large mix of things including legal problems. But yeah I dont see why Flash and Wonder Woman are having so many issues

I know you are going off of the studios trend so far, but frankly I would think in order to get JLA off the ground as a crossover a Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and Flash movie would need to happen first ideally using JLA as a platform to test Aquaman, Martian MAnhunter, and whoever else they plan on using.
Kind of OT: I think thats what MArvel should do with Black Panther, Hawkeye, etc.
Back OT: I think MM would need JL as a platform for a solo film, Aquaman maybe.

[Webhead2006]

i know what really is all the dam developmental problems with a flash/ww/aquaman/etc... character these guys should have easily had chances since the comic book movie boom started with blade and all that. I really dont see why a these guys couldnt have happened in this past decade at all.

[dnno1]

Telling me to "stop before it gets worse" is saying I have no valid points to make, so if you REALLY wanted me to drop it.... probably not the smartest thing to say. Why not just say "woman, shut up!" It seems you are very comfortable with women knowing their place in the male dominated genre, and any attempts to "come out of the kitchen" so to speak are fool hardy and pointless. To which is say F THAT. Change doesn't come until someone does it right.

I haven't stated my position on a woman's place at all. I have only stated the facts about the industry. Female super-heroine films have never done well and the history proves it. That's not stating an opinion, but just reporting the facts. If you want to call somebody sexist or something, say that to the movie going public. Now here is my opinion: I don't think it is wise to base the justification of the green-lighting of a potential $180 million budgeted blockbuster film on a video that only sold around 143,000 copies and grossed a little over $5 million (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/0WW09-DVD.php)on a $3.5 million budget (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1398941/business). Please stop! You could f-that if you like but please do that at home.

In any event, No..I did not mention Sheena, Red Sonja, Barb Wire, etc. Mostly because I was focusing on more recent fare, which has a better track record. And I have a theory on why all of those movies failed, and I don't think it has much to do with the female leads. To me, it's simple: MOST of those movies used sex (or the suggestion of sex) to sell to the male audience. Guys don't go for this, because they have porn for that (especially nowadays) Women don't go for it, because they find they objectification of the women objectionable. So it ends up dead in the water with no real demographic to appeal to. If the studios treat their female action vehicles as nothing but camp or disposable T&A stuff, how can they be shocked at their Box Office outcome? Make the fact that she is a woman incidental to the spectacle (like in Aliens) and not have her boobs and ass be the spectacle itself. Because that NEVER works.

But two of the films you mentioned were never comic book super-heroine genre. One was based on a television series and the other a video game. Furthermore they aren't even considering making any more Charlie's Angels or Tomb Raider films. If they were that successful, you would think they would be.


And I'm saying use the template of the scipt used for the animated film as a basis for the live action. Yes, I am fully aware the DTV animated film have a limited audience. Nevertheless, I believe that particular movie got the best reviews of ALL the animated DC films, many which pointed out this is take that a live action Wonder Woman film needs. That is what I'm saying here.

Guy, the film (http://www.the-numbers.com/dvd/charts/weekly/2009/20090315.php) dropped off the charts after the second week of its release and sold no where near as many copies as Pinocchio did in one week. If the script was that good, why were the results so poor? Get real.

Yes, a live action Wonder Woman film is risky, which is why you need to do it RIGHT. I'm not saying they break the bank on it, but done right at the very least you get a $140 million + Incredible Hulk style "dissapointment", or you get a bona fide smash hit. Either/or would be a better intro to Wonder Woman than just the "chick character" in the JLA movie.

And what would be done right. The industry has been trying to figure that out for the past 50 years and they still haven't figured it out yet. I doubt you would either.

[Crook]

Just because they haven't perfected a formula doesn't really mean it's impossible. There's no inherent flaw within a female-leading movie that prevents it from being successful. The writers/directors are either incompetent, or the material has yet to strike the right chord to become a success with the masses.

WW has the benefit of name recognition and blockbuster-sized stories. Those two right there set the project up leaps ahead of other female-leading vehicles. Women have a reason to go because it's an actual woman (read: not a masculine character under the guise of a female). Men would be interested given the lead is as sexy as the character is drawn, and the entertainment value matches those of typical blockbuster flicks which are led by men.

So yes, while it's true that given the history it would be daunting to take on a fully-backed WW film, I really don't see it as that big of a deal given the potential the franchise has. There are several contingencies to be factored in, but what future big film doesn't?

[dnno1]

Just because they haven't perfected a formula doesn't really mean it's impossible. There's no inherent flaw within a female-leading movie that prevents it from being successful. The writers/directors are either incompetent, or the material has yet to strike the right chord to become a success with the masses.

WW has the benefit of name recognition and blockbuster-sized stories. Those two right there set the project up leaps ahead of other female-leading vehicles. Women have a reason to go because it's an actual woman (read: not a masculine character under the guise of a female). Men would be interested given the lead is as sexy as the character is drawn, and the entertainment value matches those of typical blockbuster flicks which are led by men.

So yes, while it's true that given the history it would be daunting to take on a fully-backed WW film, I really don't see it as that big of a deal given the potential the franchise has. There are several contingencies to be factored in, but what future big film doesn't?

They haven't perfected a formula yet and there is no reason to believe they will in the near future. Sure you could say that it is not impossible, but based on history, it is close to improbable (if it is a solo film). There are several solutions that may make it work: Creating a film with an ensemble cast, featuring the character in a film where the hero is a male, or producing the film on a low budget (< #30 million). I am quite sure that none of you would like either of these solutions.

[Docker2.0]

It's not impossible but it's darn sure is close to it. :o

[Crook]

They haven't perfected a formula yet and there is no reason to believe they will in the near future. Sure you could say that it is not impossible, but based on history, it is close to improbable (if it is a solo film). There are several solutions that may make it work: Creating a film with an ensemble cast, featuring the character in a film where the hero is a male, or producing the film on a low budget (< #30 million). I am quite sure that none of you would like either of these solutions.
Improbable based on what? Can we really say that they've actually semi-attempted a film of that type of caliber, only to fail? The female solo action movies have been crap purely on an artistic perspective. You're not going to get anywhere if the foundations are shaky to begin with.

I could make the argument that until films like Road to Perdition, Watchmen, Unbreakable, and TDK were made...the comic book film genre was stuck in a position where it wasn't seen as anything more than entertainment. But the previously mentioned films did strive to be something more than it was, and whose production values/techniques could definitely be seen as "high-art" compared to their genre relatives. Before this, did it mean it was improbable for such an "artistic" film be made from being adapted/influenced by comics? Nope. Just wasn't done. Nor attempted.

As I've said, there is absolutely nothing inherently flawed with having a female lead in an blockbuster production. It has nothing to do with incompetent writers not knowing how to write such a role.

[Webhead2006]

i still ww time to have been out was probably late 70s/through 80s when there was alot of tough action chick films.

[dnno1]

Improbable based on what?

It would be improbable based on the history of female superheorine films over the past 50 years ("Barbarella", "Modesty Blaise", "Sheena: Queen of the Jungle", "Supergirl", "Red Sonja", "Brenda Star", "Tank Girl", "Barbwire", "Catwoman, "Elektra", "Aeon Flux", "Ultraviolet", and "My Super Ex-Girlfriend" -- I am sure there are more that I can't think of right now). All of these films I mentioned didn't have a good showing at the box office and they dropped the idea of a franchise.

Can we really say that they've actually semi-attempted a film of that type of caliber, only to fail?

I believe they were serious about all of the films that I mentioned (Tank Girls was written and directed by the creators of the character). They just didn't do well. And if I were a Hollwood producer, I would think more than twice about wanting to produce a female super-heroine film for that reason (especially if it wasn't an with an ensemble cast).

The female solo action movies have been crap purely on an artistic perspective. You're not going to get anywhere if the foundations are shaky to begin with.

Well that's kind of subjective, but you are just judging them on their box office results and not on their content. "Supergirl", was a great movie. The story line for "Ultraviolet" was based on the academy award winning film, "Gloria". "Modesty Blaise" received consideration at the Caans Film Festival back in the late 1960's. The only problem that these films had was the lack of interest. It is not a matter of a shaky foundation, it is the iterest in the film that matters most.

I could make the argument that until films like Road to Perdition, Watchmen, Unbreakable, and TDK were made...the comic book film genre was stuck in a position where it wasn't seen as anything more than entertainment. But the previously mentioned films did strive to be something more than it was, and whose production values/techniques could definitely be seen as "high-art" compared to their genre relatives. Before this, did it mean it was improbable for such an "artistic" film be made from being adapted/influenced by comics? Nope. Just wasn't done. Nor attempted.

These films either had ensemble casts and/or a male lead in the role. You place a female in that position and it may be a different story. The statistics will show that they will gross less than their male counterpart.

As I've said, there is absolutely nothing inherently flawed with having a female lead in an blockbuster production. It has nothing to do with incompetent writers not knowing how to write such a role.

You haven't proven that and I am not convinced at all.

[The Guard]

So uh...how's AMELIA doing?

[Crook]

It would be improbable based on the history of female superheorine films over the past 50 years ("Barbarella", "Modesty Blaise", "Sheena: Queen of the Jungle", "Supergirl", "Red Sonja", "Brenda Star", "Tank Girl", "Barbwire", "Catwoman, "Elektra", "Aeon Flux", "Ultraviolet", and "My Super Ex-Girlfriend" -- I am sure there are more that I can't think of right now). All of these films I mentioned didn't have a good showing at the box office and they dropped the idea of a franchise.
You've just proved my point. You won't find many people that would agree that any of those films were great to any degree.

I believe they were serious about all of the films that I mentioned (Tank Girls was written and directed by the creators of the character). They just didn't do well. And if I were a Hollwood producer, I would think more than twice about wanting to produce a female super-heroine film for that reason (especially if it wasn't an with an ensemble cast).
This isn't a question of passion. This is a question of ability. The underlying question is, "can a female-driven story be good?"...and that's unequivocally 'yes'. It's the action aspect that many stumble upon, and I have no doubt it's because the creative people behind it are perplexed with how to write the opposite gender in that context. They're either ****tified, or made into men.

Well that's kind of subjective, but you are just judging them on their box office results and not on their content.
Kindly not assume.

"Supergirl", was a great movie.
Loved it as a kid, hated it as an adult.

The story line for "Ultraviolet" was based on the academy award winning film, "Gloria". "Modesty Blaise" received consideration at the Caans Film Festival back in the late 1960's.
What does this have to do with anything? Ultraviolet is it's own entity, you do not judge it along with it's influences. "She's the Man" was based off of Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night", are you going to tell me solely because of association that the former is automatically great?

The only problem that these films had was the lack of interest. It is not a matter of a shaky foundation, it is the iterest in the film that matters most.
Lack of interest stemmed from the shaky foundations of the past. The public builds up a general unconsciousness of genres based on what has been given to them. Look no further than the almost universal distaste for B&W films and subtitles. They're not used to it, and it reminds them of an era/culture they can't relate to. So they avoid it. In this particular case, they're avoiding fluff and the deemed unnecessary attempt to give females an action voice. With the history behind it, I don't blame them one bit for laughing at the notion.


These films either had ensemble casts and/or a male lead in the role. You place a female in that position and it may be a different story. The statistics will show that they will gross less than their male counterpart.
You have totally misconstrued my point with that paragraph. It wasn't about male/female leads. It's about introducing the audience to a type of film they would not expect from that genre or story. Given that the product is good, this alters audience perception.

Think of what Pirates did for pirate stories. What TDK did for comic book films. What Ledger did for comic book roles. What LOTR did for fantasy epics. What Sixth Sense did for thrillers. What Blair Witch did for viral marketing.

They've all redefined what it means to be (insert appropriate term here). There's a distinct before/after thanks to them.

You haven't proven that and I am not convinced at all.
It's not my position to prove. The burden of proof lies with the positive claimant, not the skeptic. So it's you that has to state WHAT specifically is flawed with a female lead, that is independent of any outside factors other than gender.

[The Guard]

This isn't a question of passion. This is a question of ability. The underlying question is, "can a female-driven story be good?"...and that's unequivocally 'yes'. It's the action aspect that many stumble upon, and I have no doubt it's because the creative people behind it are perplexed with how to write the opposite gender in that context. They're either ****tified, or made into men.

I don't think that's the case at all in most female-driven action films. Actually, NOT ****tifying characters and having them retain "female" elements (whatever that means) is one of the few successes female action films have had. The characters are just generally not well executed, and neither are the stories.

[Crook]

My issue is if they're not taking advantage of the female assets, they go too far on the opposite end of the spectrum and basically write a male role.

Uma in Kill Bill, I thought was a good balance of the female-side with her aggressive components.
Kate in Underworld, I thought was little more than a masculine female.

[dnno1]

You've just proved my point. You won't find many people that would agree that any of those films were great to any degree.

:huh:

I think we were talking about the improbability that a female super-heroine film could be made successfully. You said that it wasn't impossible and I said that it was improbable (i.e. not very likely at all although there could be a very small chance). I don't see how that proves your point. Furthermore a lack of interest does not necessarily equate to a film being bad. Like I said before one of those films had recognition at Caans.


This isn't a question of passion. This is a question of ability. The underlying question is, "can a female-driven story be good?"...and that's unequivocally 'yes'. It's the action aspect that many stumble upon, and I have no doubt it's because the creative people behind it are perplexed with how to write the opposite gender in that context. They're either ****tified, or made into men.

Well by the way you are acting, it sure looks like it is a question of passion. History has shown that these films do not do well at the box office. Pursuing the cause of making one just because there is a remote chance that it could be successful is a very risky proposition. I am sure that a lot of studios are just waiting to see if another studio is willing to try it to see if he will be successful or not, yet not willing to risk it on their own.


Kindly not assume.

Did you see all of those films I mentioned? I doubt it and hence you are basing your comment on either the results of the box office or the fact that I said they weren't successful. That is subjective (i.e. your perception based on a superficial observation). I am not assuming that.

Loved it as a kid, hated it as an adult.

And a lot of kids still like it. In my opinion, it would have done better at the box office if Superman were actually in the movie instead of on a poster in the film (more Superman fans would have attended). What really counted anyway was the interest in the film at the time of it's release.

What does this have to do with anything? Ultraviolet is it's own entity, you do not judge it along with it's influences. "She's the Man" was based off of Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night", are you going to tell me solely because of association that the former is automatically great?

You said that all of those films were crap, and I showed you two example where one film was basically an Academy award winning film that was repackaged as a futuristic vampire movie and the other had mention at the Caans Film Festaval. They weren't necesarily crap. It could very well be that not enough people were intrested.


Lack of interest stemmed from the shaky foundations of the past. The public builds up a general unconsciousness of genres based on what has been given to them. Look no further than the almost universal distaste for B&W films and subtitles. They're not used to it, and it reminds them of an era/culture they can't relate to. So they avoid it. In this particular case, they're avoiding fluff and the deemed unnecessary attempt to give females an action voice. With the history behind it, I don't blame them one bit for laughing at the notion.

So you are trying to tell me that following up a film like "Superman" with "Supergirl", "Batman" with "Catwoman", "Conan the Barbarian" with "Red Sonja", "James Bond" with "Modesty Blaise", or "Daredevil" with "Elektra", is a shaky foundation and the time it was proposed? I don't think so.

You have totally misconstrued my point with that paragraph. It wasn't about male/female leads. It's about introducing the audience to a type of film they would not expect from that genre or story. Given that the product is good, this alters audience perception.

I am not misconstruing anything. There are articles out there that have evidenced the fact that the only female films that do well usually have ensemble casts or are made on a low budget. That is why the "X-Men" franchise has been able to do it so well (ensemble cast) and "Underworld" and "Resident Evil" (low budget franchises) as well. They either lured in fans of other actors or catered to a smaller market.

Think of what Pirates did for pirate stories. What TDK did for comic book films. What Ledger did for comic book roles. What LOTR did for fantasy epics. What Sixth Sense did for thrillers. What Blair Witch did for viral marketing.

They've all redefined what it means to be (insert appropriate term here). There's a distinct before/after thanks to them.

Each of the films you listed have larger followings than any of the female superheroine films already made and more than likely a Wonder Woman film (You will find a lot more kids going to a POTC film than a scantly clad woman fighting monsters). Not a good example.

It's not my position to prove. The burden of proof lies with the positive claimant, not the skeptic. So it's you that has to state WHAT specifically is flawed with a female lead, that is independent of any outside factors other than gender.

You said:

As I've said, there is absolutely nothing inherently flawed with having a female lead in an blockbuster production. It has nothing to do with incompetent writers not knowing how to write such a role.

Proove it buddy. Don't make statements like that and think you can get off scott free without showing any proof that that is the case. I have shown a 50 year history that prooves otherwise.

[dnno1]

So uh...how's AMELIA doing?

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=amelia.htm

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/amelia_2009/

These seem to be popular sites (although I don't necessarily endorse the accuracy of RottenTomatoes).

[The Guard]

So basically AMELIA is crashing and burning.

No pun intended.

Seriously.

We're talking about a movie that features Amy Adams, probably one of the most beloved young talents across several age ranges...a story about one of the most famous female adventurers of all time...failing at the box office. Big time. Is it because the film is completely awfully written and executed? Based on reviews, I very much doubt it. Now, you can argue that no one cares about Amelia Earhart, but...

Uma in Kill Bill, I thought was a good balance of the female-side with her aggressive components.

Kate in Underworld, I thought was little more than a masculine female.

Like the characters in Aeon Flux, Ultraviolet, and Catwoman, and how many other female-driven movies? Ostensibly because UNDERWORLD is a fairly thin, straightforward film without much depth to begin with. There's a direct correlation to how much depth a film has, and how cliche a lead role is, and how much depth is written into the role.

Now, I believe WONDER WOMAN can work, but I don't know if people will buy into it. Female driven action films generally don't do well compared to male ones. There have been countless studies and assessments of that.

If WB is leery of the whole "female action film" thing, I think the solution is probably to introduce Wonder Woman in a JLA film and build off that.

[Crook]

:huh:

I think we were talking about the improbability that a female super-heroine film could be made successfully. You said that it wasn't impossible and I said that it was improbable (i.e. not very likely at all although there could be a very small chance). I don't see how that proves your point.
You're talking about a female-driven movie succeeding (financially I presume). I'm talking about a good female-driven movie succeeding. In other words, performs great critically and monetarily.

Furthermore a lack of interest does not necessarily equate to a film being bad. Like I said before one of those films had recognition at Caans.It was submitted at Canne's. It was received poorly, as far as I know. Anyone that's seen it can see why, that is one mess of a film. I just wiki'd it and apparently it was based off a comic strip, so maybe you had to be a fan of the material. I just simply did not "get it". Wasn't for me.

Well by the way you are acting, it sure looks like it is a question of passion. How am I acting? Passion is involved in some form of course, but it means nothing when you can't transmit that to the script, and eventually to the silver screen.

History has shown that these films do not do well at the box office. Pursuing the cause of making one just because there is a remote chance that it could be successful is a very risky proposition. I am sure that a lot of studios are just waiting to see if another studio is willing to try it to see if he will be successful or not, yet not willing to risk it on their own. I'm not really doubting the history. At the same time I can't give the history much credit when it hasn't done much for the subgenre in the first place. Crap will always get crap, doesn't mean everything through sheer association is the cause of it.


Did you see all of those films I mentioned? I doubt itMighty presumptuous of you. What is the point of asking questions when you're going to make up your mind anyway? If you have to ask, of the films you mentioned, there are three I did not watch all the way; Tank Girl, Elektra, and Sheena. I simply could not get through them because I was bored to death, but I did watch at least half the movie.

and hence you are basing your comment on either the results of the box office or the fact that I said they weren't successful. That is subjective (i.e. your perception based on a superficial observation). I am not assuming that. I'm basing my comments off my viewing experience, and taking into account their general response from the moviegoing audience.


You said that all of those films were crap, and I showed you two example where one film was basically an Academy award winning film that was repackaged as a futuristic vampire movie Again, I must ask you how a good film being remade, somehow makes the remade film good. In spite of influence, you have to judge each as a separate entity. I don't give a damn if it was repackaged, it was still a major disappointment to me. I was actually looking forward to the film because I liked Equilibrium.

Hell, Gus Van Sant's Psycho was a shot-for-shot remake of a very revered Hitchcock film. I'm sure I don't need to reiterate how that one turned out.

and the other had mention at the Caans Film Festaval. They weren't necesarily crap. It could very well be that not enough people were intrested. I won't hold public interest against them, because it usually takes a breakout film to get people to look at the subgenre with a newfound eye. But my stance still stands, I didn't find any of those films you mentioned to be noteworthy in the least.

So you are trying to tell me that following up a film like "Superman" with "Supergirl", "Batman" with "Catwoman", "Conan the Barbarian" with "Red Sonja", "James Bond" with "Modesty Blaise", or "Daredevil" with "Elektra", is a shaky foundation and the time it was proposed? I don't think so. I'm not interested in what they're spin-offs of. I'm referring to the foundations of the respective films, in their own right.

Each of the films you listed have larger followings than any of the female superheroine films already made and more than likely a Wonder Woman film (You will find a lot more kids going to a POTC film than a scantly clad woman fighting monsters). Not a good example.Again, that's beside the point I am making. Before those films were made, whatever factor they ended up changing was not expected by the audience. Pirates was predicted to be a bomb very early on in production because no one believed a pirate movie would be relevant in the modern age. No one predicted TDK could actually have a legitimate Oscar campaign for Best Director or Best Film, despite not getting the nominations in the end. No one could have predicted a comic book role had a shot at turning up at the Oscars, let alone snagging the trophy.

This is not about name recognition, solidified fanbase, etc. This is about turning out a product that is a "first" of it's kind, and changing perspectives of what to expect from that area of filmmaking.

You said:

Proove it buddy. Don't make statements like that and think you can get off scott free without showing any proof that that is the case. I have shown a 50 year history that prooves otherwise.Prove...what? I just finished saying there was no such x-factor to speak of. You want me to give you proof of nothing? That doesn't make sense. This is the equivalent of a Catholic going up to an Atheist and saying: "PROVE God doesn't exist, buddy. I dare ya." :funny:

Lemme repeat: burden of proof lies on the positive claimant. The positive claim being "there IS an independent factor (based on gender alone) preventing female-driven movies from being successful". That is your position and claim, thus it is you that has to present the proof.

So basically AMELIA is crashing and burning.

No pun intended.

Seriously.

We're talking about a movie that features Amy Adams, probably one of the most beloved young talents across several age ranges...a story about one of the most famous female adventurers of all time...failing at the box office. Big time. Is it because the film is completely awfully written and executed? Based on reviews, I very much doubt it. Now, you can argue that no one cares about Amelia Earhart, but...
Erm...are we looking at the same reviews?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/amelia_2009/

15%

That is beyond atrocious, especially for Oscar bait.

Like the characters in Aeon Flux, Ultraviolet, and Catwoman, and how many other female-driven movies? Ostensibly because UNDERWORLD is a fairly thin, straightforward film without much depth to begin with. There's a direct correlation to how much depth a film has, and how cliche a lead role is, and how much depth is written into the role.Not disagreeing. But when it comes to female action movies, such (lack of) depth is prevalent in practically every single project. It's a huge stain on the subgenre, which is why until a standout film is made, everyone will continue to stray away from a bold attempt at proving the stigma wrong.

IIRC, you love Watchmen. As do I. But can we really say that film, as it was cut by Snyder, would have EVER seen a greenlight, much less the light of day, if it weren't for the success of TDK? That project was in massive limbo because of little interest, and I feel like that's where we're at with WW.

If WB is leery of the whole "female action film" thing, I think the solution is probably to introduce Wonder Woman in a JLA film and build off that.That would be the safe bet, but it still doesn't help build confidence in a solo WW film. On the offchance that JLA is a huge hit, you can just as easily argue that it was due to other factors (such as Supes and Bats) that were the roots of success. So you're back to square one on that front.

[RachelDawes]

So basically AMELIA is crashing and burning.

No pun intended.

Seriously.

We're talking about a movie that features Amy Adams, probably one of the most beloved young talents across several age ranges...a story about one of the most famous female adventurers of all time...failing at the box office. Big time. Is it because the film is completely awfully written and executed? Based on reviews, I very much doubt it. Now, you can argue that no one cares about Amelia Earhart, but...

Amelia stars Hilary Swank. Amy Adams played Amelia in Night at the Museum 2.

[Webhead2006]

is amelia film even out in full release yet? i though it was only playing a few cities right now?

[The Guard]

Amelia stars Hilary Swank. Amy Adams played Amelia in Night at the Museum 2.

Yeah...I know...braincramp.

Still...

[The Guard]

If you have to ask, of the films you mentioned, there are three I did not watch all the way; Tank Girl, Elektra, and Sheena. I simply could not get through them because I was bored to death, but I did watch at least half the movie.

Do yourself a favor. Rent (or steal) ELEKTRA and watch the very, very end of it. It's funnier than CATWOMAN.

Erm...are we looking at the same reviews?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/amelia_2009/

15%

That is beyond atrocious, especially for Oscar bait.

Haven't seen the film, but as I understand it, it's fairly well made, even fairly well executed, it's just not entertaining or all that interesting, and not the film people "wanted" to see of her life.

Not disagreeing. But when it comes to female action movies, such (lack of) depth is prevalent in practically every single project. It's a huge stain on the subgenre, which is why until a standout film is made, everyone will continue to stray away from a bold attempt at proving the stigma wrong.

True, but I see the same thing in most male-centric male action movies, in terms of thin, mostly depthless main characters.

IIRC, you love Watchmen. As do I. But can we really say that film, as it was cut by Snyder, would have EVER seen a greenlight, much less the light of day, if it weren't for the success of TDK? That project was in massive limbo because of little interest, and I feel like that's where we're at with WW.

WATCHMEN was pretty heavily intro production by the time THE DARK KNIGHT was released. Per Wikipedia, principal photography began in Vancouver, September, 2007.

WATCHMEN was greenlit because of the massive success that was 300, and WB's desire to make the movie, period, after people decided serious comic book films were worth watching.

I'd say WATCHMEN owes more to BATMAN BEGINS and X-MEN for its existence than it does THE DARK KNIGHT.

[Evil Twin]

I'd say WATCHMEN owes more to BATMAN BEGINS and X-MEN for its existence than it does THE DARK KNIGHT.

I'd say WATCHMEN owes more to 300 which was helped get made by the success of SIN CITY.

[Antonello Blueberry]

In a few hours on Collider.com they should publish another part of their long interview with Dan Lin, probably related to the Justice League and Suicide Squad movies.

[Webhead2006]

would be nice if dan lin gives out any new details on what would have been with JLM. As for sucide squad it would be nice if that is still moving along but i dont recall seeing any news of it in the last few months. But with wb/dc stuff we just have to play by ear and see what actually makes it on deck.

[biolumen]

Collider: You’re listed also for Justice League Mortal.

Dan Lin: It’s the dream project.

Right, that’s why I’m sort of saving it. It’s like the punch at the end.

Dan Lin: Yeah. I mean it’s…I’ll say it’s the reason I started my company. You know, I thought that was the ultimate project. I was a fan-boy for me to work with all those characters together on a team and kind of the themes of that movie. That’s my dream. It’s on-hold right now as DC sorts out its strategy but as you’ve talked to Allen Horn and Jeff Robinoff it seems like they’re building to Justice League instead of going with the team movie first and doing individual movies after that.

Well it’s interesting because Marvel, they’re making Avengers. It’s right on their drawing board. They’re not backing away. And it’s probably the most challenging project they’re going to make, trying to factor in all these people. It does seem like the superhero….it seems like Marvel has done an amazing job with their superhero movies. And, for me, DC, Warner Brothers I’m sort of perplexed and they’ve talked about redoing things at Warner Brothers about how they’re not making more superhero movies. They’re obviously doing Green Lantern. Saying that, are there certain superhero movies that you are interested in bringing to the screen….because I know they did a whole shakeup at Warner Brothers with people letting go of projects and other people coming onboard.

Dan Lin: Right. The only one right now as you probably know, they’re unveiling their DC strategy in January so you’ll hear more about that and they’ll speak about that in the new year.
http://www.collider.com/2009/12/22/producer-dan-lin-on-the-justice-league-movie-suicide-squad-and-stephen-kings-it/ (http://www.collider.com/2009/12/22/producer-dan-lin-on-the-justice-league-movie-suicide-squad-and-stephen-kings-it/)

The only new bit is that Lin confirms some strategy revelation in January. He alludes to a possible mention of a future JLA movie as part of the announcement, but I have reservations about that.

[Webhead2006]

yea from what it looks like they are probably trying the marvel approach now solo leading up to hopefully a jl movie. I do hope we hear some solid direction going for characters. We know gl is due to start filming soon, hex/loosers out this summer, batman 3 news, but after that we dont really know if anything is really moving along or not. Though with how things are after gl the next big tentpole guy i could see happening is either shazam or flash thing along with either of them some minor character like a hex/loosers to compliment it and all that.

[Webhead2006]

yea from what it looks like they are probably trying the marvel approach now solo leading up to hopefully a jl movie. I do hope we hear some solid direction going for characters. We know gl is due to start filming soon, hex/loosers out this summer, batman 3 news, but after that we dont really know if anything is really moving along or not. Though with how things are after gl the next big tentpole guy i could see happening is either shazam or flash thing along with either of them some minor character like a hex/loosers to compliment it and all that.

[Man of Tomorrow]

Building towards a JL movie is gonna need to require some good timing.

You have Bale and Reynolds as Batman and Hal who are a certain age... but if Superman gets so backed up that the Superman actor is born in the 90s... it won't fit.

Hopefully they can find a way to make everything consistent but I'm not optimistic.

[Webhead2006]

yea things are just really a mess with dc trying to get to a jl movie right now. At this rate with all the issues they have just to get a character to the movie screens. They should just try sticking to the solo projects and see where things go.

[Gabe99]

Maybe it will be a JLA movie with Hawkman and Supergirl instead of the traditional team.

[Webhead2006]

lol who really knows, though we should get a better picture on things if that whole dc schedule thing is indeed revealed in jan.

[FilmNerdJamie]

If they eventually get around to a Justice League movie, Dan Lin will have about as much direct involvement in it as Jon Peters had on Superman Returns.

[GreenKToo]

I'm not gonna hold my breath for any sort of announcement. we've been down that road before.

[Blackman]

I want them to get their solo film game good before I see JL and as you said GreenKToo I'm not holding my breath for an announcement

[Docker2.0]

Bah! Just give me my Supermax movie. That movie sounded great and shouldn't be to expensive to make.

[GreenKToo]

Maybe we should be asking for films that we don't want, that way we would prolly get the ones that we do want.:hoboj:

(Ahem) I want a plastic man and wonder twins film. :O

[Webhead2006]

it does suck we just keep sitting around hoping for things to happen. it would be great if we did know for sure where certain characters did stand and all that.

[Antonello Blueberry]

http://www.earthsmightiest.com/fansites/justiceleague/news/?a=6339
Interview with "Justice League: Mortal" stunt coordinator Richard Norton.

[biolumen]

Thanks Antonello. Interesting behind-the-scenes stuff.

[FaT_tONle]

So if anyone read the Nolan interview... now that Nolan confirmed he is keeping Bats/Supes separate... what's the timeline we are looking at before we get a JLA? If Superman makes bank and is kept separate... he's gonna get a trilogy. I mean you'd be looking at probably 2019 before the Supes trilogy is even finished. Maybe they will start incorporating other DC characters together as Nolan gets less and less involved, but it wouldn't look good at the moment. Maybe it's better to put off the DC cross overs for a decade, and take it one film/hero at a time. Can't blame them.

[Docker2.0]

It's a dumb idea. Seriously, Batman and Superman has been done numerous times. GL and Flash I can understand them having solo movies to build on but............them not crossing over is stupid. Especially with the fan reaction the small scenes the Avengers is having. I remember being in the theater when Nick Fury appeared at the end of Iron Man and even non comic fans were cheering. Can you imagine the reaction of seeing Superman flying beside the Batmobile and telling him about a team he and his friends are working on?!

[Webhead2006]

well yea it would be cool to have a jl film. But with all the other characters like ww/flash/aquaman/martian manhunter in mo real development stages. its really hard to have a cross promotional universe like marvel studios films are doing. So right now its probably best to have things each be their own universes, but leave it open in some way to say these other characters are there. So then if they do have a jl film by the end of this decade maybe it will be from the guys in these films.

[FaT_tONle]

Plus it's not like every character is gonna get their own trilogy. GL I think will be a one movie deal unless it shatters expectations. WW, Flash, MM... I don't see it. But I do think it is important to introduce some of them before JLA, or as many as possible. I don't mind waiting until the end of the decade/beginning of the next before we start getting some JLA movies. I don't think it's important they use the same actors either. Look at how many recasts have taken place over at Marvel up until now.

[Docker2.0]

What do you mean? There's been only one or two recast. :huh:

[Webhead2006]

i am sure gl is going to do well, and i am sure the plan has been for gl to be a triology at the least. But yea its pretty much a film by film deal with these characters. I do hope gl will do well for many sequels, and i hope we can get to see ww/flash solo films too. I agree some like aquaman/martian manhunter are probably less likely to get a solo film first. But hey we never know. if someone comes on board with a great idea wb likes maybe we will see a film from them.

[FaT_tONle]

What do you mean? There's been only one or two recast. :huh:

There will probably be more when all is said and done. I just don't think it's realistic to expect Renolds to return for a JLA 8-9 years from now if there is only one... MAYBE two GL films with Hal in the meantime. Good thing there are other Lanterns available. Same with Flash/WW if they see only one movie each between now and then, unless their movies are a couple of years before JLA is released, which is a distinct possibility.

[biolumen]

Jay Baruchel Was Maxwell Lord In Stalled 'Justice League' Movie, Confirms Teresa Palmer

Posted by Rick Marshall

Remember when Warner Bros. was planning a live-action "Justice League" movie that put Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and Flash on the same screen? With so much happening in the DC and the Marvel movie-verses the last few years, it's easy to forget about the film, which was scheduled to hit theaters in 2008 before stalling out. However, that doesn't mean we're not intrigued by what might have been.

When MTV News caught up with "Sorcerer's Apprentice" actress Teresa Palmer recently, she said she hoped to still play Talia Al Ghul at some point, and confirmed an old rumor that co-star Jay Baruchel was cast in the film as the main villain, Maxwell Lord.

"Jay and I were both attached to do that movie, 'The Justice League of America,'" said Palmer. "I was Talia Al Ghul, he was Maxwell Lord."

"It's been sidelined for the time being and we don't really know what's happening with it, so fingers crossed it will still come off the ground," she added.

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/04/08/justice-league-jay-baruchel-teresa-palmer-maxwell-lord/

Ha!

[Sawyer]

Then we should all consider ourselves lucky that that thing got cancelled.

[Retroman]

http://www.earthsmightiest.com/fansites/justiceleague/news/?a=6339
Interview with "Justice League: Mortal" stunt coordinator Richard Norton.http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/04/08/justice-league-jay-baruchel-teresa-palmer-maxwell-lord/

Ha!

Interesting stuff, thanks guys.

Well, Palmer is confirming what we already knew for a long time. And i really don't see Miller's Justice League happening with the current cast so maybe it's best they put it out of their head's and move on.:o

Megan Gale seems to be doing just that with her first Australian feature film I Love You Too opening next month. Here's the poster, promo shot and a trailer feat. a short clip of Gale's scenes at the link.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/1535/heroimg.jpg http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/7987/castmegangale.jpg

http://www.iloveyoutoomovie.com/

[OptimusPrime114]

Interesting stuff, thanks guys.

Well, Palmer is confirming what we already knew for a long time. And i really don't see Miller's Justice League happening with the current cast so maybe it's best they put it out of their head's and move on.:o

Megan Gale seems to be doing just that with her first Australian feature film I Love You Too opening next month. Here's the poster, promo shot and a trailer feat. a short clip of Gale's scenes at the link.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/1535/heroimg.jpg http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/7987/castmegangale.jpg

http://www.iloveyoutoomovie.com/

It's funny:

Not only is there a fan-favorite for WW in that picture, but also a fan-favorite for Black Canary

[Webhead2006]

yea nothing new there though it is nice to hear the folks who were to be in the film thoughts on things and all that. But yea miller's jl is not ever likely to happen. And with them trying to get flash of the ground now, gl filming, and what ever happens with batman and the superman reboot. it will probably be a totally different jl film if it ever happens.

[biolumen]

Exclusive : Gale still keen on Wonder Woman

by Clint Morris (Friday, April 23rd, 2010 at 11:47 pm )

Rumours abound that "Justice League of America'' is about to escape development hell and finally get back on track, with punters predicting a big announcement at the forthcoming San Diego Comic Con. If it is indeed happening for real this time, it probably goes without saying that the studio will likely start afresh - ditching most of the previously-announced cast members (Teresa Palmer, Armie Hammer, Common, Adam Brody and D.J Cotrona were all onboard the film before it collapsed in February of 2008) in favour of some bigger names (they do, after all, need to compete with the all-star looming all-star superhero spectacle, "The Avengers)''.

Actress Megan Gale, originally attached to play Wonder Woman, tells Moviehole she doesn't expect George Miller will be back - if only because he's going to be pretty busy for the next few years with other projects.

"If it is indeed back on, it'd be interesting to know who's directing it - because George Miller [who was originally attached to direct the film before it fell apart] is going to be busy with the new Mad Max film for the next couple of years'', Gale, out stumping her new film, "I Love You Too", said yesterday.

Gale admits she doesn't "know anything" about the latest rumour though, so will just continue hoping that she does indeed get to play Wonder Woman on the big screen in the near future.

"I'd love to do it", says the actress, confirming she'd been doing fight-training for the film in the lead up to its planned shoot. "And I'd love to see it happen."

There's a bit of a "superhero" connection to Gale's latest film, "I Love You Too", too - an "Incredible Hulk" watch plays an important role in the film.

Writer Peter Helliar explains that "we had to get [Marvel's] permission to feature it. And there's a scene at the end of the film where Yvonne Strahovski dresses up in a generic superhero costume - originally, that was going to be a Spider-man costume. And it would've been great if she could've dressed as Spider-Man but it would've been tough trying to convince them to let us use the likeness, so we settled on the generic one.''

http://www.moviehole.net/201024522-exclusive-gale-still-keen-on-wonder-woman

[jmc]

She's got about as much chance of playing WW as my mother.

[Webhead2006]

yea it was nice to hear she still would love to play the character. but at the rate jl and ww projects are moving. Its doubtful we would see either of them before like 2015 very likely. Plus we have no clue how wb will ultimately want to cast ww if it actually gets going. And gale isnt getting any younger. She is already what 33? in a few more yrs she may just be a shade to old.

[Webhead2006]

yea it was nice to hear she still would love to play the character. but at the rate jl and ww projects are moving. Its doubtful we would see either of them before like 2015 very likely. Plus we have no clue how wb will ultimately want to cast ww if it actually gets going. And gale isnt getting any younger. She is already what 33? in a few more yrs she may just be a shade to old.

[biolumen]

Gale also revealed that the famous Wonder Woman outfit had already been made prior to the film’s 2008 cancellation.

“The costume was done. Fit to my body - no one else’s”.

http://www.whatsplaying.com.au/2010/04/film-still-wonder-woman/

Pics please.

[Webhead2006]

well we been told before from some of the other cast members they were at costume stages abrit probably not final copies of costumes. Man it would be great if the costume's looks ever did make it online and hopefully they will some day.

[dark_b]

the suit will leak out. but it will take years.

[Webhead2006]

yea probably someone from production has to have photos laying around somewhere. hopefully they will find their way online one of these days.

[DCnightwing23]

I really would love to see this movie still be made, and i think it will just to compete with marvels avengers, the cast was actually pretty decent. What are the odds this movie will still happen? I would love to see it on the big screen! I hope the announce at comic con in july that its still back on!

[Webhead2006]

not likely at all, since they are going in other directions for characters like batman, superman, gl(with hal version) and all that. If we will get a jl film. its doubtful we will see it before flash and maybe ww or aquaman get a solo film.

[Blackman]

I really would love to see this movie still be made, and i think it will just to compete with marvels avengers, the cast was actually pretty decent. What are the odds this movie will still happen? I would love to see it on the big screen! I hope the announce at comic con in july that its still back on!
Lmao probably not. Maybe another JL film. But I'm 99% sure Mortal wont happen anytime soon
but Im really hoping for costume and script leaks

[Mr. Earle]

http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=17541

JLA film in the works?

[Changeling]

I saw that on IMDB. I hope thats the case. It sounds great. A name drop in Green Lantern would be so frickin' awesome!

[Nightwing]

I too just read this...Hope it actually goes somewhere.

[mat-chow]

I hope so too. I believe a DC Universe CAN be successfully developed from the BB/TDK universe. Far stranger things have happened.

[Webhead2006]

i doubt jla is any time soon in happening. If it is will probably be after we get superman in a sucessful film/series, and gl going strong too. Then at least flash and/or ww solo film prior to jla. I still say if we are going to see jl it probably wont be to 2015 or later. Due to its at least 2yrs to get a film going and we need to still get superman going, flash going .......

[Docker2.0]

I hope so too. I believe a DC Universe CAN be successfully developed from the BB/TDK universe. Far stranger things have happened.

It could be. I don't understand why they want to keep it separate. Batman doesn't have any powers in the comics so why would it matter if doesn't have any if the movies? ........Meaning he can fit into the JLA universe. It's stupid for DCE to think otherwise. :doh:

[FaT_tONle]

The BB/TDK Nolanverse gelling with JLA debate just has a life of its own. It's one of those great debates on the hype. You take that comment to the TDK forum and it's a whole different animal.

[Docker2.0]

Who in their right mind would go to that forum?! It's like going to Mcdonald's and asking for a Whopper. You'd be killed before you even make it to the door.

[Webhead2006]

totally we can debate to the end of time why or why not nolan's batman cant be in a world with mutants and aliens and all that. All you need is a good story and explaination and it can all work out. But for me i still say we are a long time away from seeing jl.

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

I think that Nolan's Batman can exist with Superman and Green Lantern. Just because Batman's surrounded by realism doesn't Supes and GL can't be around. Look at the Punisher- realistic character, but sometimes interacts with Spider-Man, Wolverine, Captain America, etc.

[jmc]

I think that Nolan's Batman can exist with Superman and Green Lantern. Just because Batman's surrounded by realism doesn't mean Supes and GL can't be around. Look at the Punisher- realistic character, but sometimes interacts with Spider-Man, Wolverine, Captain America, etc.

Given the definition of realism or plausibility, yeah it kinda does mean they can't be around.

[Mr. Earle]

Given that Year One exists in the same continuity as Final Crisis, the same could be said about Nolan's films. Its just Batman's start and his first encounter with the mob and some supervillains. Batman often fights the mob in the comics and in the next issue he could be fighting aliens.

That said, Nolan's approach has been overly realistic to the point that people would scratch their heads if that happened. Nolan also tampered with unrealistic elements of the mythos and made them more realistic, like the Joker's skin and Ras' immortality. Had those elements been kept intact the door would have been more open to a JL film.

[cerealkiller182]

That said, Nolan's approach has been overly realistic to the point that people would scratch their heads if that happened. Nolan also tampered with unrealistic elements of the mythos and made them more realistic, like the Joker's skin and Ras' immortality. Had those elements been kept intact the door would have been more open to a JL film.

I find this very doubtful. I think people will easily accept it. The only reason it is even being discussed is because Nolan had said so, and I believe Nolan's disgust with JLA stems from the possibility of the studio undermining or going over his head when it comes to the possible continuation of his installments.

[Webhead2006]

well they can easily jsut say magical beings and aliens are jsut not around/active yet. with the right story it can all work out.

[Docker2.0]

Given the definition of realism or plausibility, yeah it kinda does mean they can't be around.

Hate to sound crazy but given the things that Batman has done in TDK, it's really not realistic. There no way anyone that worked in that company couldn't have figured out they help build the bat mobile or those bikes or even the gear that Bats wears. You mean to tell me that only one guy who sits in a office figured it out? What about the guys who made the tech hands on? Not to mention Bats flying into China holding onto a airplane all the way to the USA for hours and if it was a personal plane, how do you explain it not being shot down from other countries? Just saying that a GL can exist in the same universe as Bats. If Thor can exist in Iron Man's tech heavy/espionage universe...............same thing could happen in the DCU.

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

well they can easily jsut say magical beings and aliens are jsut not around/active yet. with the right story it can all work out.
:up:

[Webhead2006]

yea if they are really trying to form a shared universe now with batman as the starting off place. hopefully it will all work out in a clear and logical way.

[Retroman]

Natela Dzuliashvili worked as a Russian accent coach on Miller's Justice League according to her management's website. Any ideas which character would need that? :huh:

Source (http://www.ginastoj.com/Females%20D-F/Dzuliashvili%20Natela/Natela%20Dzuliashvili-cvOct09.pdf)

[HighFivingMF]

Hate to sound crazy but given the things that Batman has done in TDK, it's really not realistic. There no way anyone that worked in that company couldn't have figured out they help build the bat mobile or those bikes or even the gear that Bats wears. You mean to tell me that only one guy who sits in a office figured it out? What about the guys who made the tech hands on? Not to mention Bats flying into China holding onto a airplane all the way to the USA for hours and if it was a personal plane, how do you explain it not being shot down from other countries? Just saying that a GL can exist in the same universe as Bats. If Thor can exist in Iron Man's tech heavy/espionage universe...............same thing could happen in the DCU.
Didn't they say the plane was something along the lines of "Korean smugglers."?

[Webhead2006]

hmmm maybe they wanted to turn max lord into a russian or something?

[Timstuff]

Just because we haven't seen Aliens or Olympians in Batman's movies does not mean that they cannot exist in his world, it only means that none of them have affected Gotham City as of yet. There are many people who believe that aliens exist in real life, so I would not put it beyond the realm of plausibility that Batman exists in the same world as Superman and Green Lantern.

BTW, in regards to my prior statements about Marvel's use of inter-movie continuity-- I actually think it's quite admirable what Marvel has done so far, because it takes some serious stones to attempt inter-franchise continuity in a way as big as what they've done. My only concern is that if they push things too far, it could come to the point where the individual franchises don't make sense on their own, and when that happens, well...

http://i49.tinypic.com/2j0e97d.png

Yeah. :oldrazz:

[Webhead2006]

yea

[Willi Berg]

Natela Dzuliashvili worked as a Russian accent coach on Miller's Justice League according to her management's website. Any ideas which character would need that? :huh:

Source (http://www.ginastoj.com/Females%20D-F/Dzuliashvili%20Natela/Natela%20Dzuliashvili-cvOct09.pdf)

Maybe Talia al Ghul?

[Webhead2006]

yea logically from who we knew was to be in the film it probably had to be talia or maybe for some reason have max lord be russian maybe like i said above.

[biolumen]

Canceled 'Justice League' Movie was "Dark, Brutal and Gory"
by Jessica Barnes Aug 4th 2010 // 3:02PM

There is no regret like the one born from a missed opportunity. When it comes to Hollywood, that regret is the source of movie legends about brilliant scripts being tossed away like garbage or a casting choice that just didn't work out. And now, thanks to some new information, we know that the big-screen Justice League can join the ranks of 'Movies That Could Have Been ... Pretty Awesome.' During a press event for The Sorcerer's Apprentice, comedian Jay Baruchel (who had been attached to George Miller's League), dished a little on Miller's plan for that buzzed-about canceled Justice League film, saying it was going to be "f**king epic."

Fans of the League (in all its incarnations) have been teased with a big-screen treatment of the DC legends as far back as 2007. When Miller stepped aboard in 2008, the director moved full steam ahead and after enduring what Baruchel called a "...blogosphere [that] was not very kind to us," the project was shelved, and Miller was out. So what happened? According to Baruchel, it all came down to a price tag (upwards of $300 million) that would've made Justice League of America "the single most expensive movie in the history of movies." And that's with a cast full of "who's that again?" I'm sorry, but how do you spend $300 million with Artie Hammer playing Batman and D.J. Cotrona (who?) playing Superman?

Of course, once Miller was gone, there was idle chatter that Christopher Nolan was being approached to direct, though Nolan made it pretty clear that he wanted to keep the Superman and Batman universes separate. But don't despair DC fans, because now that The Green Lantern (a key member of the League) is on his way, there is still hope that Lantern, plus a rebooted Superman and Batman (once Nolan's trilogy is finished), could finally help put DC back on the map -- culminating in an eventual Justice League movie that will rival what Marvel is doing with its Avengers in 2012.

At SDCC last month, Geoff Johns (DC's Chief Creative Officer) avoided any direct answers regarding the possibility of reviving the project, but he did hint that the success of Lantern would determine any future DC franchise flicks, including Justice League.

As a relative novice to the world of JLA, what was always the sticking point for me in creating a live action film was how do you get this many superheroes in one room and make it believable? Apparently, Miller had cracked that nut, and the production was underway in Australia. Everyone involved was busy with costume fittings, creating concept art (I know most fans would happily donate a major organ to get a look at those images) and even making some visits to the Weta Workshop. According to Baruchel, Miller's vision would have finally put to rest any fears that a big-screen Justice League movie was a cheap cash grab that would degenerate into an exercise in camp.

Baruchel explains, "I'll just say this, if we had been able to make the movie that we had gone down [to Australia] to rehearse, if you had seen the production art I'd seen ... it would've been the coolest thing ever. It would have been the neatest vision of Batman and the coolest vision of Superman you've ever seen. It would have been dark and fairly brutal and quite gory and just f**king epic."

http://www.cinematical.com/2010/08/04/canceled-justice-league-movie-was-dark-brutal-and-gory/

[SuperFerret]

Well, thank goodness for that.

[chelo248]

Justice League Movie Is a Go (http://www.**************.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=21147)

:huh:

[SuperFerret]

Heard about that. Seems like a good idea, use a potentially successful franchise (Green Lantern) to launch a JL movie.

[Crook]

That film isn't going anywhere without the big two.

[OptimusPrime114]

Uh-oh! I sense the "F*** You, Geoff Johns!" rants in the future!

[Karelia]

That film isn't going anywhere without the big two.
Yeah, it's just not right not to not include them in a JL film. I can understand giving the other characters more screen time since they haven't had their own films, but to keep them out of the movie completely is just stupid. Batman and Superman would bring a lot more people in to see the movie.

Since this is still way in the early stages, I'm sure they'll add them in eventually. If they don't, then...:doh:

[Sawyer]

Justice League Movie Is a Go (http://www.**************.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=21147)

:huh:


I said it in another thread and I'll say it again: The article sounds like complete bull****.

[Ipodman]

Pfft.

So Spider-man and Wolverine are not in Avengers means Superman and Batman doesnt need to be in Justice League?

[mego joe]

Well, Superman and Batman weren't in the original stories way back in their first Brave and the Bold issues. They were part of the team but they didn't play a role, just a brief cameo of why they couldn't participate.

[HighFivingMF]

Just cast Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Nightwing and make him lead.

Just kidding of course.

[Binker]

Okay, guys. Does anyone see that article and not realize it's about to become false very, very soon? It is total BS for these 3 reasons:

1) When you read that article, did you guys get a sense of nostalgia? I ask that because for me it sounded similar to the news on JLA back in '07 (or was it '08, who knows). Which makes me believe this is actually old news that someone took and redid and reposted to make it new. Already, I'm dreading at the thought that we're going to hear this at CBR, Superman Homepage, etc until it is proven false, mainly because it really is. And more of that can be found below;

2) The idea of not having Superman nor Batman, but having Green Lantern makes no sense. News broke out recently over a GL2 & 3 already in the works, and being developed when GL1 is relased. Already, that news makes it feel unbelieveble since now and then could change and have effects in the future. But back on this; they are not going to have two characters that we would want to see badly and greatly on a JLA, but will do so to someone whose film isn't even out yet? If Marvel's Avengers and the upcoming Expendables has done anything already, it's that you can take big stars and big characters together and make it work. WB doesn't want to, or wouldn't even, do that?!

3) DCE, and even WB, from the very beginning on these projects, have officially stated that its solo films first, then JLA. So with that in mind, wouldn't this be the opposite of their plans? Their official, "we f***ed up on JLA so let's not do that again", plans!!!

When you put all this together, there is no way that news is true. It sounds like the JLA news back when the Avengers film plans first hit the webs back then. It is all false, and it will be proven soon. Hopefully very, very, soon.

[Octoberist]

There's holes in the article.

Now I think there's talks but I can't see how Justice League being a priority when The Flash, Wonder Woman, and the rest don't have movie yet: no release dates, no directors, no actors, script, nothing.

[Parker Wayne]

I said it in another thread and I'll say it again: The article sounds like complete bull****.

Sawyer you took the words right out of my mouth.

[jmc]

2) The idea of not having Superman nor Batman, but having Green Lantern makes no sense. News broke out recently over a GL2 & 3 already in the works, and being developed when GL1 is relased.

That's the most obvious red flag here, GL 2 is already in development, and seriously, the idea of Bats and Big Blue not being in a JL film is absurd to say the least. No-one, and I mean no-one at WB would be that stupid to think you can have a JL film and not have the two biggest guns in the arsenal, the chance to see those two onscreen together is the biggest draw of all. This story is BS.

[youkaisama]

Well, if this news is somewhat correct, I think focusing on a, for the lack of a better word, “lesser” members of the Justice League other than the Big Blue and the Bat is a great idea. I don’t think Martian Manhunter could carry a solo movie, and the image of Aquaman needs to be portrayed in a better light first before any of his solo movies.

They could easily do a storyline where the White Martians are starting to invade Earth by working behind the shadows and J’onn comes to Earth to stop them, like in the DCAU JL’s pilot. Aquaman gets involved when the White Martians want to invade Earth when it is at its weakest state, so, the martians starts to create a conflict between the atlanteans and the Land-Dwellers., and the stories goes on from there. Well, that’s just an example. I’m sure any good writer could come up with an Idea that is way better to integrate the characters.

What I do not agree is the exclusion of Supes and Bats from the JL. It’s like taking Cap and Iron Man from Avengers. Totally a wtf move. And I do think Wonder Woman should get her solo movie first, instead of introducing her first in the JL movie. I could see this move of focusing of lesser characters work, but they need to do it delicately.

[protocida]

I much rather have a Justice League movie with Wonder-Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman and Martian Manhunter than introduce the Multiverse only in order for Superman and Batman to appear. I actually think it's the best way to go, because, let's face it: Superman and Batman would totally monopolize the movie if they were in. Everyone else, except for, maybe, Wonder-Woman would be reduced to glorified secondary characters.

And I'm calling it now: If they make the movie without the two, Green Lantern is totally going to be the leader. :hehe:

[Parker Wayne]

I much rather have a Justice League movie with Wonder-Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman and Martian Manhunter than introduce the Multiverse only in order for Superman and Batman to appear. I actually think it's the best way to go, because, let's face it: Superman and Batman would totally monopolize the movie if they were in. Everyone else, except for, maybe, Wonder-Woman would be reduced to glorified secondary characters.

And I'm calling it now: If they make the movie without the two, Green Lantern is totally going to be the leader. :hehe:

To be honest I'd rather have a Batman/Superman movie than Justice League. Is getting Batman and Superman on screen together so hard to ask?

[protocida]

Apparently. :hehe:

[Project862006]

of course he is they have ryan freaking reynolds lol

[FaT_tONle]

Honestly, if they have legitimate plans for a Supes trilogy, I can see JLA not immediately featuring the big two. If only to give more time between Nolan's series. Eventually Batman and Superman could come in. As far as introducing new characters without being overshadowed, it is a slam dunk.

[dnno1]

http://www.cinematical.com/2010/08/04/canceled-justice-league-movie-was-dark-brutal-and-gory/

According to Clint Morris over at Moviehole (http://www.moviehole.net/201025900-baruchel-talks-canceled-justice-league-movie), Baruchel also said that "Justice League Mortal" (had it been made) "would've blown "Superman Returns" and "The Dark Knight" out of the water".

Justice League Movie Is a Go (http://www.**************.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=21147)

:huh:


Okay, guys. Does anyone see that article and not realize it's about to become false very, very soon? It is total BS for these 3 reasons:

1) When you read that article, did you guys get a sense of nostalgia? I ask that because for me it sounded similar to the news on JLA back in '07 (or was it '08, who knows). Which makes me believe this is actually old news that someone took and redid and reposted to make it new. Already, I'm dreading at the thought that we're going to hear this at CBR, Superman Homepage, etc until it is proven false, mainly because it really is. And more of that can be found below;

2) The idea of not having Superman nor Batman, but having Green Lantern makes no sense. News broke out recently over a GL2 & 3 already in the works, and being developed when GL1 is relased. Already, that news makes it feel unbelieveble since now and then could change and have effects in the future. But back on this; they are not going to have two characters that we would want to see badly and greatly on a JLA, but will do so to someone whose film isn't even out yet? If Marvel's Avengers and the upcoming Expendables has done anything already, it's that you can take big stars and big characters together and make it work. WB doesn't want to, or wouldn't even, do that?!

3) DCE, and even WB, from the very beginning on these projects, have officially stated that its solo films first, then JLA. So with that in mind, wouldn't this be the opposite of their plans? Their official, "we f***ed up on JLA so let's not do that again", plans!!!

When you put all this together, there is no way that news is true. It sounds like the JLA news back when the Avengers film plans first hit the webs back then. It is all false, and it will be proven soon. Hopefully very, very, soon.

So now we have the CBM blog saying that the projects back on again but there is no script and no Superman nor Batman for now, but yet we know that the Mulroneys wrote a script and that is supposedly dark and epic. Why aren't they pulling that project back off the shelves instead of using a clean slate? Something's fishy here.

[protocida]

Maybe because it was dark, brutal, gory, had Superman, Batman and Wonder-Woman at the center of everything and the Justice League had already been brough together by the time the movie started?

[Willi Berg]

Maybe because it also interferes with plans for the solo movies, esp. the Flash and the story of Barry and Wally.

They could probably use elements of it, but if there is some build up to a JLA movie, then it should factor what has come before it, which Mortal didn't worry about.

[Kokomo29]

I think that it is either one plan or the other, honestly. They are either going to be going with solo films first and then making a Justice League movie, or they are going to use a Justice League movie as the "introduction" to some of the lesser-known characters and then (hopefully) introduce Superman and Batman later. The second option would most likely mean that characters like The Flash, Wonder Woman and Aquaman would NOT get solo films and would simply be introduced in the the collaboration film. I could definitely see Ryan Reynolds taking on the leading role/team leader role in the Justice League movie if they decided not to include Superman and Batman from the get-go. I think that WB is seeing GREEN LANTERN as being a big hit and I think they definitely see Reynold's capability of being a leading man in a serious blockbuster. I am not sure if WB has a great deal of confidence in The Flash, Wonder Woman and Aquaman as solo films, so this latest rumor (if true) may be their answer to their reluctance. As much as I would love to see some of DC's lesser-known heroes get solo films, I think introducing them in a Justice League movie could be pretty cool (so long as Superman and Batman are in their as well).

Just my 2 cents...

[Sub-Zero]

flash is getting his own film. i really doubt they'd ask greg berlanti(who wrote green lantern) to write and possibly direct the flash movie if he wasn't going to be introduced until justice league.

also jay burachel is a huge dork, and a terrible actor. i'm so glad they never made that justice league mortal movie. casting alone was horrible.

[Sawyer]

According to Clint Morris over at Moviehole (http://www.moviehole.net/201025900-baruchel-talks-canceled-justice-league-movie), Baruchel also said that "Justice League Mortal" (had it been made) "would've blown "Superman Returns" and "The Dark Knight" out of the water".

Heh. Cool your jets there, Jay, it wouldn't have been hard to blow SR out the water, but TDK? If you're going to lie to my face, at least make it a believable one. :o

[Blackman]

It probably wouldnt have been that gory if they wanted PG13...which Im sure WB wanted understandably

But I really want to read The JL:M script

[Willi Berg]

flash is getting his own film. i really doubt they'd ask greg berlanti(who wrote green lantern) to write and possibly direct the flash movie if he wasn't going to be introduced until justice league.

I agree that we will at least be getting the Flash.

What I wonder is how would a JL movie fit in to the stories of any possible sequels to Green Lantern and Flash. Would a JL movie be made between a Green Lantern 2 and 3, for instance. Or will they wait until the Green Lantern and Flash trilogies are over. It would be tricky to introduce a shared universe when still telling these individual stories.

[biolumen]

Hammer video interview. Talks Justice League at 18:15 mark

I was up for the role of Batman in George Miller's Justice League, and it was going to be, in my opinion, one of the greatest comic book movies ever made. The universe that George Miller created and the work that he did on that was unlike anything I have ever seen. He approached that like a psychologist. He wanted to show the truth of the these comic book characters in a way that I don't think they've been shown on film before. It's unfortunate that he never got a chance to show the world what he had. But we all saw it. We saw all the previs stuff. He had a room, bigger than this room, that had floor to ceiling storyboard depictions of the entire movie. So, you could walk around the entire room, take you about an hour, but you would get the entire movie just by walking around the storyboards. I mean he had it all figured out.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/09/26/interview-armie-hammer-from-the-social-network/

[echostation]

The truth of these comic book characters in a way that has never been seen before?

What the **** is he talking about? From what I understood, it was going to be Dark brutal and gory... something Superman and Wonder Woman should NOT be.

Secondly, wasn't there this whole nonsensical talk of a HYPER-real environment with a mix of like 300 type backgrounds... like a different sort of visual tone of the reality in the movie.

Superman in a dark black/grey and blue costume with CG enhancements? Sounds like garbage....

[Timstuff]

Personally, I think the only place we're going to see an Aquaman movie for a looooooong time is Entourage. I know he has some fans, but in general most people who have heard of him only know him because of all the jokes that he's the butt of. The general perception of him is that he's a cheesy character with lame powers, so he's definitely the biggest risk. They'd probably be better off trialing him with something like an animated TV series before they attempt to make a movie out of him to see if he sticks with audiences. Greenlighting movies of C-list superheroes without testing the waters first (no pun intended) can be a risky proposition.

[Willi Berg]

Hammer video interview. Talks Justice League at 18:15 mark
Glad to hear him talking about it. Good that people involved are still being asked about it, so that we do get some info., though slowly over time. Of course, old concept art/costumes would be good too.

it was going to be Dark brutal and gory... something Superman and Wonder Woman should NOT be.
The OMAC story involved mind control, extermination, murder- Superman trying to kill other superheroes and he and Wonder Woman in a bloody battle. That's directly from the comic.

Personally, I think the only place we're going to see an Aquaman movie for a looooooong time is Entourage.
It was cool seeing Entourage making the Aquaman movie- Ari with the script, Vinnie taking in a meeting with the studio boss Alan, seeing the suit (although silly) and Vinnie taking harpoon and diving lessons in preparation for the role. And then the premiere, and showing part of the "movie". Even though he was the butt of jokes, it was cool to see Aquaman if you are a fan.

Aquaman in the JLA movie is the safest way to introduce him, as he looks to be more problematic than even Wonder Woman for a solo movie. Although there have been those rumours over the years that Leonardo DiCaprio and his production company are trying to launch him. If DiCaprio and co. find a way to crack the script, somehow get it going, then there is that slight chance that we will get an Aquaman movie. A big name like DiCaprio involved can be a way for the movie to be made, though it still seems like there isn't much movement on that front.

[Octoberist]

Would anybody oppose a Mulit-verse Justice League? I've got a strong feeling that this is the direction that the JL movie will go, after reading the Flash article about 'alternative realities'.

[hippie_hunter]

Superman in a dark black/grey and blue costume with CG enhancements? Sounds like garbage....

From what I remember, the black costumes that the Leaguers wore were funeral costumes and it started off with the Leaguers having a funeral for Barry Allen.

[Mr. Earle]

Would anybody oppose a Mulit-verse Justice League? I've got a strong feeling that this is the direction that the JL movie will go, after reading the Flash article about 'alternative realities'.
What article is that? Do you have a link?
So... is the JL film back online?


About your question, i wouldnt want that just yet. The general audience will initially frown upon the idea of so much spandex in one movie. So i'd rather the league faces a big threat (Martians, Darkseid, Solaris) instead of their alternate selves (spandex x2). Besides, they need to bond as a team first before they can take on an evil JL.

And if they ever do something like that, i'd rather they go with JL of the future from DC One million, rather than JL of another dimension which is eviiiil.

[Octoberist]

"A third thing I'd throw at you is alternate dimensions, so it's true that we want to find the things that make it… With 'GL,' we used to say there's a space opera component and then there's the down on earth. In 'The Flash,' there's the sci-fi component and there's the crime component and it's fitting those two things together, and the sci-fi thing, we obviously want to nail that and honor that and do that in a way that feels visceral and real and cool and probably more in the tone of 'The Matrix" films or things like that. I always think of 'The Flash' stories where he met Jay Garrick and knows there was Earth Prime and things like that. There's an avenue for these films to broaden the DC Film Universe in that way, so that's the hope."

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/107752-exclusive-script-for-the-flash-and-gl2-treatment-in-progress

[Mr. Earle]

Ah Ok, thanks.

Well, they still dont have a united DC movieverse, so they should first start with that and then expand to alternate dimensions. They shouldnt rush it.

[protocida]

From what I remember, the black costumes that the Leaguers wore were funeral costumes and it started off with the Leaguers having a funeral for Barry Allen.
Correct.

[Blackman]

THe plot synopsis for JLM is actually really good. It had alot of ideas that I had for a JL that I thought about: OMAC army, Max Lord, Lex Luthor involvment. I wouldve taken out Talia and the Darkseid cameo, but all in all it does sound like a really good script

The problem was the casting. None of the actors seemed like they fit their roles

[HighFivingMF]

Anyone know if the segment about the first line of actors was true? Routh/Bale/Biel/Yelchin/DiCaprio/Fishburne/Spacey/Johannson/Gibson/Pooch from The Losers?

[protocida]

Anyone know if the segment about the first line of actors was true? Routh/Bale/Biel/Yelchin/DiCaprio/Fishburne/Spacey/Johannson/Gibson/Pooch from The Losers?
That was Warner's original plan. But, after they reduced the budget due to the Australian taxes, the cast was changed to:

Superman/Clark Kent - D.J. Cotrona.
Batman/Bruce Wayne - Armie Hammer.
Wonder-Woman/Diana - Megan Gale.
Flash/Wally West - Adam Brody.
Green Lantern/John Stewart - Common.
Aquaman/Arthur - Santiago Cabrera.
Martian Manhunter/John Jones - Hugh Keays-Byrne.
Maxwell Lord - Jay Baruchel.
Talia Al Ghul - Teresa Palmer.
Iris West - Zoe Kazan.

Lex Luthor was cut.

[Blackman]

Brody was Barry I thought with Wally beign Yelchin

[HighFivingMF]

I'd love to have seen Leonardo DiCaprio as Aquaman, and acting alongside Christian Bale. I know Appian Way (Leo's company) is supposed to be producing the Aquaman though, so there's still hope for the former.

[Sawyer]

Good God, that JL: Mortal cast sounded terrible.... except Brody, I thought he was an okay fit. Not my first choice, but waaay better than the rest on that list.

[Mr. Earle]

Anyone know if the segment about the first line of actors was true? Routh/Bale/Biel/Yelchin/DiCaprio/Fishburne/Spacey/Johannson/Gibson/Pooch from The Losers?
Jesus. Its like they casted everyone based on their popularity. Fishburne as GL? Really? And Gibson in a superhero movie? Good luck with that.

[HighFivingMF]

Jesus. Its like they casted everyone based on their popularity. Fishburne as GL? Really? And Gibson in a superhero movie? Good luck with that.
Fishburne was Martian Manhunter. Pooch from the Losers (his name escapes me) was John Stewart.

[Sawyer]

Colombus Short?

[Blackman]

Columbus Short

[HighFivingMF]

Colombus Short?
That's it. Yeah, him.

[Mr. Earle]

Fishburne was Martian Manhunter. Pooch from the Losers (his name escapes me) was John Stewart.
Ok, that's better, but still, this is a whole lot of top tier actors, who obviously get paid top salaries.

[gkokujin]

sorry but there is only one man i envision as the Martian Manhunter and that is Christopher Judge.

http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/2374.gif


not like he's doing anything right now...

[TheWatcher]

That first cast list was pretty Awesome IMO.

[DCnightwing23]

That first cast was gonna be pretty epic although i never liked Spacy as Luthor, but the second cast in order to save money wasnt too bad i still wouldve loved to see it made nonetheless from everything ive heard and read about it it seemed like the story was gonna be pretty well done, the special effects were gonna be amazing, everyone was really enthusiastic about doing this movie. I feel pretty awful for most of that cast especially since that movie was really gonna sky rocket them and i felt they couldve pulled it off, everyone was training together, the costumes were ready it was so close but never happened. I really hope we see some of those costumes and designs for that movie, if we dont i would imagine they would be kept in a vault for a future jla movie? I mean those probably cost a ton, why waste it.

Now we have to wait, what, something like 5 years or more for a justice league movie which is really a downer but also has its upsides because were finally seeing other jla characters like GL about to be released, and im guessing if they are really gonna wait for the main line up of the jl to have the own movie then it could take away before we see a justice league movie, which means sadly Bale wouldnt be in the justice league movie because as for as everyone knows right now Batman 3 is the last batman movie for him. But it also means we'd see a new superman which i hope is properly done unlike superman returns. I can see everything coming together but way down the line which is upsetting

[Changeling]

Damn, that first cast is really really good. I'd love to have seen that! It's too bad they had to cast all those ****** actors instead

[TheWatcher]

^Agreed.

[biolumen]

"We had gotten a long way into pre-production," said Hammer about the ill-fated Australia-set production. "We were about to start shooting when the writer's strike happened at the end of 2007, and then the Australian government denied a 40% tax rebate that they thought they were going to have, so a lot of things just when wrong."

"It's unfortunate," he continued, "because the amount of work that was already done — I mean, they had finished pre-production and they were a couple of days away from starting to shoot, so it's a shame that nobody got to see all of the work that got put into it."

But Hammer has a positive outlook on the situation, taking a silver lining away from the film's cancellation: "At the same time, it was a great experience to get to go to Australia for a month and a half!"

On top of that, it's hard to complain about playing the Caped Crusader, even if Hammer only wore the superhero's costume a handful of times in pre-production.

"I loved it," Hammer said of wearing Batman's costume. "But I didn't even get a picture of it!"

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/09/30/armie-hammer-batman-justice-league-movie/

[Parker Wayne]

Damn, that first cast is really really good. I'd love to have seen that! It's too bad they had to cast all those ****** actors instead

Agreed. I never heard about the first cast and the second cast was pretty awful.

Who was who in the first cast? Can someone tell me that?

[protocida]

Superman/Clark Kent - Brandon Routh.
Batman/Bruce Wayne - Christian Bale.
Wonder-Woman/Diana - Jessica Biel.
Flash/Wally West - Anton Yelchin.
Green Lantern/John Stewart - Columbus Short.
Aquaman/Arthur - Leonardo DiCaprio.
Martian Manhunter/J'onn J'onzz - Lawrence Fishburne.
Maxwell Lord - Mel Gibson.
Thalia Al Ghul - Scarlett Johansson.
Lex Luthor - Kevin Spacey.

[Parker Wayne]

Wow, that sounds pretty awesome and I would watch that film!

[batman strikes]

Superman/Clark Kent - Brandon Routh.
Batman/Bruce Wayne - Christian Bale.
Wonder-Woman/Diana - Jessica Biel.
Flash/Wally West - Anton Yelchin.
Green Lantern/John Stewart - Columbus Short.
Aquaman/Arthur - Leonardo DiCaprio.
Martian Manhunter/J'onn J'onzz - Lawrence Fishburne.
Maxwell Lord - Mel Gibson.
Thalia Al Ghul - Scarlett Johansson.
Lex Luthor - Kevin Spacey.

These people were never cast in the movie. This was more of a wish list from the producers and George Miller before they needed to cut the budget down.

[biolumen]

More from Hammer.

I know you we hand picked by George Miller to play Batman in the Justice League film, is there anything you more you can tell us about what happened to that project?

I was so excited, that was supposed to be such an amazing project. George Miller was creating something that was spectacular. It was unlike anything anyone had seen.

When we went down to his production offices in Australia where we were there for two months training. You would walk in and see he had the entire film storyboarded around a room that is like four-times the size of this room. He had the entire film figured out in his head. They had pre-visualized all the fight sequences, they had done EVERYTHING.

So the actors were there as a last resort to step into what he had already created. So it was going to be one of the most epic comic book films out there. They were approaching this in such a different way, it was the psychology of it all.

He was really doing everything right, down to how he was having everyone trained. Like Batman, as being the only human in the Justice League with no superpowers he had to be the consummate martial artist and he had to earn his place there. He also had to have that analytical detective mind so I spent hours everyday working with the Australian special forces learning how to fight and think like a predator.

The guy that was playing Superman DJ Cotrona, his workout schedule was very different he was mostly doing power lifting and boxing to be strong and built like Superman. The guy playing the Flash Adam Brody was doing all rubber band work so he would be real twitchy and fast. Santiago Cabrera who was playing Aquaman, was being sent to northern Australia to swim with dolphins for hours a day so that he would be use to being in the sea with animals.

George was doing everything right and I really wish he to got to show everyone his vision.

What happened with that film? Because the production on it just stopped very abruptly, I wasn’t aware it had actually gotten that far along into production.

Well there was the writer’s strike at the end of 2007 that really lurched the gears. That was a devastating hit for the movie I think, we were actually in the rehearsal phase when it all happened. So if there was a problem where this line doesn’t really work the writer’s strike was on and no one can change it, because you don’t have a writer here. It was difficult to work in that aspect.

So we kept training and the Australian government denied a tax rebate that they said was going to be available because there weren’t enough Australian actors in the film to qualify. There were several factors that all built up till it was too much, I think; it was a large budget at a precarious time.

http://geekadelphia.com/2010/09/29/the-social-networks-armie-hammer-interview/#more-16084

[JokerLedger]

No matter how much Arnie and whoever else was involved talks about the movie, I still can't get excited with no pics. Someone's gotta leak them!

[DCnightwing23]

Yeah somethings gotta leak soon, because they cant use them for a future justice league movie that'll be with a completely different cast. Just release them officially, why waste all that work? I dont get it unless its still a option for WB. I personally would love for everyone that was working on the justice league movie (cast, director, producer, writers, etc.) to make a cg dtv movie, use the same story same everything just make the cg characters look like the cast that was chosen and make the suits of everyone duplicated in cg form, this movie needs to be made in some capacity

[biolumen]

From the same audio quoted above, Hammer also said this.

So it was going to be, in my opinion, one of the most epic comic book movies out there. I mean, they were approaching it in such a different way. It was the psychology of it all. Why these people function the way they did. Why Batman, even if he's sitting in the Batcave, doesn't take off his cowl. Why that's more him and Bruce Wayne is the mask. Why Superman feels the way he does about humanity. It's all those deep issues that are latent in the comic books that a lot of the movies gloss over because they want to do product placement or something like that.

The JL part of the interview begins at the 3:00 mark linked here...

http://geekadelphia.com/2010/09/29/the-social-networks-armie-hammer-interview/#more-16084

In the event that doesn't work, try this...

http://player.wizzard.tv/public/player/player.vU.swf?destination=k-dd78a5de17c81910&rss=http://cinedork.libsyn.com/wrss&show=k-60b6f0668616fe6e&item=k-10c424db09355917&uuid=root&dt=0&page_url=unknown&spinner_url=&user=9a6a33b18685bb07583f39be56c40f67

[jmc]

Yawn. Why hasn't this thread been closed yet?

[Mr. Earle]

Hammer's heart is in the right place, but i didnt trust the director, i didnt like the casting (Hammer was alright, but WW looked like a Brazilian for example), and the production quality didnt sound so good.

In any case, i'd rather they do it the Marvel way, rather than rushing a JL movie out there with a different Batman to comfuse the audience. A World's Finest movie with the mergure of the two franchises would be a good step forward and ease the transition to a movie with 5-6 people in spandex.

[jmc]

That film was only ever a knee jerk reaction to a Superman film that under performed. Thank christ for TDK.

[Parker Wayne]

Hammer's heart is in the right place, but i didnt trust the director, i didnt like the casting (Hammer was alright, but WW looked like a Brazilian for example), and the production quality didnt sound so good.

In any case, i'd rather they do it the Marvel way, rather than rushing a JL movie out there with a different Batman to comfuse the audience. A World's Finest movie with the mergure of the two franchises would be a good step forward and ease the transition to a movie with 5-6 people in spandex.

Honestly, I'd rather just have a World's Finest film over a Justice League film if given the choice. I just wanna see Superman and Batman on screen together.

[protocida]

But WW looked like a Brazilian for example.
What do you have against brazilians, pal? :cmad:

[El Payaso]

Hammer's heart is in the right place, but i didnt trust the director, i didnt like the casting (Hammer was alright, but WW looked like a Brazilian for example), and the production quality didnt sound so good.

Racist. ;)

[Mr. Earle]

What do you have against brazilians, pal? :cmad:
They dont look like Greeks, that's all. Other than that she was hot! :o

[biolumen]

For jmc. :woot:

Quint: Do you think any of that stuff is ever going to come out?

Armie Hammer: I wish it would.

Quint: The project is dead, right?

Armie Hammer: I think so, yeah.

Quint: I’m fascinated by that stuff, the “almost happened,” the “What if” stuff and just the idea of George Miller doing a JUSTICE LEAGUE movie still… I think it’s going to go down as one of the saddest “This didn’t happen” things ever.

Armie Hammer: And dude I saw it all. Like I saw the prevised fight sequences. I saw the entire storyboarded film that he had in a room ten times the size of this room with storyboards floor to ceiling, so you walked around the entire room and read the movie like a comic book. What he did… He created something that was so magnificent and put so much work into it, the fact that it never got a chance to be seen by daylight or appreciated by those who really would appreciate this more than anything else… I mean he was bringing in the psychology of these characters more than anyone else ever had.

We had psychiatrists with us in our rehearsal process to be like “Why this?” He was like “Well you see, with a delusional character like this, like the Batman, who thinks in this such a way, like a paranoid schizophrenic like this, this would be the motivating factor.” You bring so much more to these characters, because it’s not just “Well in this frame you are going to jump on top of this car and you are going to throw your Batarang.” It’s like “Why is everyone doing what they are doing, but in George Miller’s true style.” He was going so in-depth in this.

We had a brain surgeon, a psychiatrist, a Joseph Campbell expert, and all of these people in every single table meeting we had for a month and a half and then all of the characters were also training as their characters, so The Flash, Adam Brody, was training as The Flash with rubber bands, so he’d be fast and twitchy. Aquaman, Santiago Cabrera, was swimming a lot and Miller would send him to go swim with Dolphins in Northern California for hours so he would be used to being around sea creatures. Batman, being the only human of the Justice League and having to really prove himself there, he had to be the consummate martial artist, as well as the ultimate detective, so he was playing psychological games with all of us.

He would leave me out of things, like intentionally, but I wouldn’t know this until months later when I would just get the feeling of like “What is going on? Why is everybody?” Because he wanted me to constantly be getting into that paranoid mind frame of The Batman.

Quint: Yeah, “you’re not really in the group.”

Armie Hammer: Exactly and he wanted to create that in everybody. For instance, DJ Catrona who was playing Superman; he brought DJ down a month early and showed him the ropes, introduced him to everybody, made him have fun with everybody and all of that, so that when everybody would go down there they would be like “Well what do we do now, DJ?” So they would look up to him like people look up to Superman in The Justice League. It was amazing.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/46833

[jmc]

What a classic Aussie movie that would have been. :rolleyes:

[protocida]

Why u so mad?

[The Guard]

You know, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Hammer's name come up for the cowl again when Bale is done...

[Mr. Earle]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/46833

We had psychiatrists with us in our rehearsal process to be like “Why this?” He was like “Well you see, with a delusional character like this, like the Batman, who thinks in this such a way,
:cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad: I MAD.

[Project862006]

armie will eventfully play a super hero

good looking
good actor
6'5
24 years old
square jaw

[jmc]

Why u so mad?

I'm not, I'm glad that piece of crap never saw the light of day. Knee jerk reaction, that's all that film was.

[GlasgowBat]

A paraniod schizophrenic, eh?

Yup, that would have been horrifying.

Even in things like OMAC project, he was never as bad as that. Bruce knew himself that things were getting out of hand.

So happy that never came to pass.

[DCUmoviepage]

but WW looked like a Brazilian for example

Im from Brazil and for something reason what you say made me remember this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcd0BhBJ2sQ

And Armie Hamner looks to be a nice guy,but i cant see him as Batman. But the JLA movie looks intresting,hope some day we will see some pics of the project.

[GlasgowBat]

Would be curious to see the production stuff, costumes and the like. But so, so glad that this film isn't being made.

[Timstuff]

Im from Brazil and for something reason what you say made me remember this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcd0BhBJ2sQ

I was going to ask "And what exactly does a Brazilian look like?" I have seen a great many Brazilian people in my life, and Brazil is almost as ethnically diverse as the United States. My brother is dating a Brazilian girl who has blond hair and blue eyes, so I'm not sure where this misconception that all Brazilian people have dark skin and hair comes from.

[Mr. Earle]

I was going to ask "And what exactly does a Brazilian look like?" I have seen a great many Brazilian people in my life, and Brazil is almost as ethnically diverse as the United States. My brother is dating a Brazilian girl who has blond hair and blue eyes, so I'm not sure where this misconception that all Brazilian people have dark skin and hair comes from.
My point was that she didnt look greek. Not that WW has to look 100% like a greek woman, but she shouldnt look off, you know? Gale looked off.

[ClarkLuther55]

It's nice to hear that they were at least putting in an effort to get the actors into their characters' heads. But I have to agree, "paranoid schizophrenic" is going way over the top as a characterization for Batman.

My problem with Gale wasn't even her looks (although by Hollywood standards I think they could have done better and younger), but her acting experience. Or lack thereof. It seemed very revealing when she came out and admitted that George Miller directly sought HER out before she had ever auditioned. Also, she was taking acting lessons, which she still would've been taking during filming had the movie not been killed.

And the rest of the cast was horrible too. A 22 year old blonde girl for Talia. A 5'9 guy who looks like a shady punk for Superman. Jay freaking Baruchel as the big bad. As jmc said, thank God for TDK.

[Parker Wayne]

I would go far as to say it would've killed or severely hurt comic book superhero films if it was released.

[GlasgowBat]

One of the appeals of a Justice League movie is seeing all these icons on screen together. No disrespect to the Avengers, but it's just not the same. The feeling would be so good.

However, imagine how it would feel to walk out of that film knowing it was poor. The crushing dissapointment would be a horrible feeling.

And that's what would have happened if this film had been released.

[protocida]

I would go far as to say it would've killed or severely hurt comic book superhero films if it was released.
That's a little bit of an exaggeration. Justice League: Mortal would be average at worst.

[Parker Wayne]

That's a little bit of an exaggeration. Justice League: Mortal would be average at worst.

I say that because a film of that huge a scale disappointing would turn a lot of people off superhero films.

[echostation]

Spring loaded titanium batarangs.... the kinds of weapons and costumes made though by Weta were meant to be some of the best made for a superhero film...

Still the rest of it sounded like total crap

[Lighthouse]

I know a lot of people want a Justice League movie, but I'm thrilled by this news and think it's exactly the right approach.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/10/08/dc-not-planning-justice-league-movie/

Geoff Johns, speaking at New York Comic-Con, confirmed that Warner Bros and DC are not currently planning for a superhero team-up Justice League of America movie. ************** reports that when Johns was asked about the possibility of shared-universe films á la Marvel, Johns responded with the following:

“I’m going to speak frankly: I think our characters are bigger than Marvel’s.” He said that he’d rather spend time building each character on his or her own rather than “smashing them together.”

[Green Ghost]

I know a lot of people want a Justice League movie, but I'm thrilled by this news and think it's exactly the right approach.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/10/08/dc-not-planning-justice-league-movie/

Geoff Johns, speaking at New York Comic-Con, confirmed that Warner Bros and DC are not currently planning for a superhero team-up Justice League of America movie. ************** reports that when Johns was asked about the possibility of shared-universe films á la Marvel, Johns responded with the following:

“I’m going to speak frankly: I think our characters are bigger than Marvel’s.” He said that he’d rather spend time building each character on his or her own rather than “smashing them together.”

He's right! I am really glad that we got Johns :up:

[Parker Wayne]

I know a lot of people want a Justice League movie, but I'm thrilled by this news and think it's exactly the right approach.


Personally I don't think you can go wrong with either one. I don't think its fair to judge Marvel's results right now when the last 3 films of Marvel's grand scheme haven't been released yet.

I don't see Marvel and DC's plans as right and wrong. I see Marvel and DC's plans as a test of risk and safe. Is it better to take a risk or be safe like in DC's films.

I applaud Marvel for having so much confidence in their character and trying to do this even if it fails. This is not a knock towards DC though. I wouldn't try and replicate a system that hasn't fully proven to be successful yet. However, I honestly can't just believe that Geoff Johns isn't at least a little intrigued by what Marvel's doing, especially considering that the first 3 Marvel Studios films have been critically and financially successful. I like like that DC's finally looking to their own character though.

Back on the Justice League film, I think this is good too. Think about that stuff after Flash and the Wonder Woman tv series premieres. See how successful they are along with Batman 3 and the Superman reboot.

And for the love of god, can we at least get a World's Finest film?

[ClarkLuther55]

It's also kind of hard to "smash them together" when only one of them has a viable solo movie series so far. If things had gone to plan, Singer's Superman would've been a home run, with a sequel already. Same thing with Whedon's Wonder Woman. Then next year we would get Green Lantern, and DC/WB would've been well on their way to a real Justice League movie.

[jmc]

Hell yeah baby. Close thread.

[Parker Wayne]

^ This.

[Blackman]

Or you can just change the title to Justice League Discussion thread

[jmc]

May as well just start a new thread then. This thread is 6 and half thousands posts of nothing now.

[Blackman]

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=322266&highlight=Justice+League

[Willi Berg]

Is any of the recent JL "news" really that new or surprising. How difficult would it be to jam in a JL story with the same characters when stories are still being told in the solo movies. And when these solo movies are launched then we could possibly get a JL movie further down the line, one not set up by references in earlier solo movies. This has been discussed repeatedly here and it's pretty much what most people expect.

[Mr. Earle]

When asked about the possibility of a JL movie in the NY Comicon, Johns said that DC's characters are larger than Marvel's, so they will keep the franchises separate instead of smashing the heroes together.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. If they knew how to do it, they have done it already, like they almost did with JL Mortal.

[Willi Berg]

As said, how can they do it if there is only one viable solo movie franchise so far, and they are still trying to figure out how to do the solo movies. WB/DC also never gave any of the solo movie directors any instructions to consider the shared universe or put in references to other superheroes.

Johns didn't really have to mention Marvel that way, he would've known that would raise the ire of Marvel fans. I personally don't care if they don't copy Marvel.

[Mr. Earle]

Nolan is finishing his trilogy so who knows where the Batman movie franchise will be in the future. GL and Superman... well we'll just have to see how good the new movies will be. Its better that Johns denied any plans so that fans would calm down and they'd have all the time in the world to hatch their plans.

Personally, if GL and Superman turn out to be good, i'd love to see a JL movie that binds all the franchises together. WW, Martian Manhunter and Aquaman will never get their own movies anyway, so they ll be introduced in the JL movie.

Basically all it needs is a new Batman movie franchise that is more like the comics, so that we can accept him in the JL. I simply cannot see Nolan's bat-swat in the JL. Some fans will argue that the Batman of Year One is the same one in JL, well yeah, but there are so many stories out there. This has to feel solid, and fit the general tone of the universe. Batman will have to be more of a batgod, fight more unrealistically and have more unrealistic villains for me to imagine him in a base on the moon. Him fighting a Joker that is not even permawhite or a Ras that might or might not be immortal doesnt help at all. But that's just me.

[Willi Berg]

A problem with the JL movie is they also have to consider making sequels to the solo movies. First they have to wait to see if the initial movie is a success, then they have to come up with a story for the sequel/s. A JL movie story can interfere with that. Green Lantern has three movies in mind, a story building up. Then they have a long term plan with the Flash franchise as well. They're thinking trilogies, something I don't see in Marvel because of The Avengers.

Comparing it to Marvel- Iron Man got two movies before Avengers; Captain America, Hulk and Thor get one each...Iron Man 2 spent quite a bit of time with a Avengers/shared universe subplot and look at the subsequent falling out between Favreau and Marvel (the stories coming out about how he felt IM2 was rushed into production and how he had to fit in the Avengers subplot). Iron Man 2 suffered as a result of the Avengers subplot- the story and the relations between its director and Marvel.

I guess they will be looking to relaunch Batman after Nolan. I'm sure there will be a lot of takers, and I can see that change in direction and allowing for stuff like Ra's being an immortal etc.

[Mr. Earle]

A problem with the JL movie is they also have to consider making sequels to the solo movies. First they have to wait to see if the initial movie is a success, then they have to come up with a story for the sequel/s. A JL movie story can interfere with that. Green Lantern has three movies in mind, a story building up. Then they have a long term plan with the Flash franchise as well. They're thinking trilogies, something I don't see in Marvel because of The Avengers.

Comparing it to Marvel- Iron Man got two movies before Avengers; Captain America, Hulk and Thor get one each...Iron Man 2 spent quite a bit of time with a Avengers/shared universe subplot and look at the subsequent falling out between Favreau and Marvel (the stories coming out about how he felt IM2 was rushed into production and how he had to fit in the Avengers subplot). Iron Man 2 suffered as a result of the Avengers subplot- the story and the relations between its director and Marvel.I dont think the individual franchises will suffer. It will be just like the comics. Each franchise does its thing and the JL book its own. There could be some cameos or maybe Waller and Checkmate could appear in all of them and then play a big part in the JL film (like Fury and Shield).

They dont have to go too much out of their way to set up the JL movie. They could even do that in a World's Finest or Trinity movie. And to be honest, IM2 didnt suffer because of the Avengers if you consider that politics and superhero teams are to Tony what being a loner is to Batman. The movie had many problems but the Avengers werent one of them. People are just used to watching a plot where the hero just deals with the villain and kisses the girl. IM2 showed a Tony Stark who is part of a bigger universe and who deals with many issues at once.

[jmc]

^ It also showed the logistical problems associated with trying to have a shared universe. WB has the right idea because I firmly believe the whole shared universe thing is ultimately unsustainable in the long run. Like after Avengers what then? Marvel's doing so much assuming it's frightening and quite frankly reckless. It's unfair to the fan base if characters solo films are affected by the whole trying to tie everything together thing. I want a GL film, I don't want a GL film that's leading up to a JL film, I don't want hints and nods and subtle references to something that isn't important to the story at hand, I don't want characters thrown in for no reason, I want the focus to be on the character at hand. A JL film will come one day, but it doesn't need to connect multiple franchises together in order to work.

[Mr. Earle]

^ It also showed the logistical problems associated with trying to have a shared universe. WB has the right idea because I firmly believe the whole shared universe thing is ultimately unsustainable in the long run. Like after Avengers what then? Marvel's doing so much assuming it's frightening and quite frankly reckless. It's unfair to the fan base if characters solo films are affected by the whole trying to tie everything together thing. I want a GL film, I don't want a GL film that's leading up to a JL film, I don't want hints and nods and subtle references to something that isn't important to the story at hand, I don't want characters thrown in for no reason, I want the focus to be on the character at hand. A JL film will come one day, but it doesn't need to connect multiple franchises together in order to work.
I guess they learned their lesson with IM2. Cap and Thor dont seem to have as much Avengers crap. In any case, i had no problems with it because they handled it like the Ultimates. IM came first, and the world responded to him. Now Thor will land on earth and off course Shield and every government on earth will investigate. Then Cap and so on. In my opinion IM2 was about Tony and not Shield. Shield just helped him out the way Gordon helps Batman.

However, I agree that it would be harder to do this with the DC franchises. Waller and Checkmate are already in the GL and they have nothing to do with a JL film. They could appear or be referenced in the other movies if its appropriate. I'm sure Luthor will approach the government and try to turn it against SM, so why not use Checkmate like the DCAU had Cadmus? Other heroes could be referenced too, like the Gotham reference in SR. Was that so bad?


EDIT: I wanted to remind everyone that Shield and the Avengers are part of Tony's supporting cast. People have this idea that because they happen to be superheroes, they are just guest stars like Superman visiting Bruce in the cave. Well they re not. Running superhero teams and doing politics is what Tony does every day. So its very natural for Shield to appear and help him, or even Tony leading it one day. So what now? Where are the Avengers that screwd up the plot of IM2? Just that one scene at the end then.

[jmc]

I don't want to get into the whole IM2/Avengers nonsense again, I've had my say on it, what i will say as though is that it makes no difference how important an element in the comics is, if it's executed poorly on screen it renders that element useless. If something only makes logical sense to a small part of the audience then your screwing the movie, it becomes a Watchmen like scenario where the fans are filling in the blanks for themselves and the rest of the audience are left wondering 'WTF?'.

[Mr. Earle]

I don't want to get into the whole IM2/Avengers nonsense again, I've had my say on it, what i will say as though is that it makes no difference how important an element in the comics is, if it's executed poorly on screen it renders that element useless. If something only makes logical sense to a small part of the audience then your screwing the movie, it becomes a Watchmen like scenario where the fans are filling in the blanks for themselves and the rest of the audience are left wondering 'WTF?'.I agree, we've had this discussion a million times before when IM2 first came out. :woot:

Look, just because Favreau didnt execute it right, it doesnt mean that it doesnt work. See Mr Freeze in B&R and Mr Freeze in BTAS or comics. Favreau introduced Shield in IM1 and nobody had any problems back then, but since this movie wasnt so linear and didnt handle its many subplots so well everyone is all "TEH SHIELDS IS RUINING MAH MOVIE!"

[Willi Berg]

Yeah, it's about the logistics too. Marvel looks to have lost Favreau, there was that lowballing of salaries because they were thinking of signing up actors for 9-picture deals etc... DC has to worry about securing their actors and directors for three movies, they can't worry about a JL movie at this point with all that. The logistics of getting a guaranteed JL movie at the end of it at a certain time is probably just too much trouble to think about. Not to mention that Wonder Woman is going to be on TV now and who knows what her relation to the movies are now, as well the attempt to get Aquaman going. And then there's Batman after Nolan leaves and Superman and his lawsuit.

Waller and Checkmate are already in the GL and they have nothing to do with a JL film. They could appear or be referenced in the other movies if its appropriate. I'm sure Luthor will approach the government and try to turn it against SM, so why not use Checkmate like the DCAU had Cadmus? Other heroes could be referenced too, like the Gotham reference in SR. Was that so bad?

I like that Johns and co. made changes to GL so that Waller could be included, as well as Parallax, Krona etc. because, even though the movie doesn't have to reference other heroes or setup a JL movie, these characters are part of the larger DC universe anyway, and can be used for other future solo movies or a teamup movie. The same way the comics can use these characters for their individual stories, while they also have played a part in other character's stories. But if recurring characters like Waller are used within the individual stories, it doesn't mean it has to set up a particular story for the JLA movie, since that hasn't been figured out yet. That's when it starts taking away from the solo movie's story, trying to be all about setting up a teamup movie. But if it serves the story, I wouldn't mind seeing something like Checkmate or S.T.A.R. Labs used in more than one movie.

I still believe a JLA movie is a possibility down the line. When solo movies are established, when they see how WW has done on TV, when they finally decide if making an Aquaman movie is possible. But obviously, what Johns and co. are stressing right now is that it is not a priority.

[jmc]

Look, just because Favreau didnt execute it right, it doesnt mean that it doesnt work. See Mr Freeze in B&R and Mr Freeze in BTAS or comics. That's not the point, it's still failed to work. Doesn't matter how good a concept is on paper, if it doesn't translate well on screen you've done nothing but waste time. Favreau introduced Shield in IM1 and nobody had any problems back then, but since this movie wasnt so linear and didnt handle its many subplots so well everyone is all ''TEH SHIELDS IS RUINING MAH MOVIE!''

Come on man, the Shield stuff in film one was so in the background it was barely noticeable and for good reason, there was no assurances IM would take off, film two it's smack bang in the middle of Act 2, god help anyone who didn't seen the end of credits cameo, Fury just comes out of nowhere, it's an apples and oranges scenario, it may not of ruined the movie on it's own, but it sure as hell played it's part. I don't blame Favreau at all for IM2, he wanted an extra year and Marvel weren't willing to give it to him.

[jmc]

But obviously, what Johns and co. are stressing right now is that it is not a priority.

I think what it really boils down to is just how much trouble the concept of a single universe on film is. It's never seamed like a concept that is feasible for film, TV yes, but not film, I wonder if Marvel have actually pondered the consequences if the remaining pre-Avengers films don't do well, what's the plan B exactly? Are they just assuming things will fall into place? That's what I want to know, especially considering filming will already be underway for Avengers next year before Thor and Cap are released, I'm really surprised more Marvel fans aren't concerned about how reckless they are being with the production scheduling of these film. I'd be screaming like no tomorrow if it was WB doing this.

[Willi Berg]

Even if the Marvel movies (pre-Avengers) do well, we've already seen evidence of them being compromised because of this overall plan and deadline for a teamup movie i.e. Favreau.

[jmc]

I've just never understood what the hell all the rush is with them. It's not like the characters are going anywhere.

[The Guard]

I don't think Johns means there will never be a Justice League movie. I'm fairly certain we will see one once Marvel's AVENGERS franchise is more or less done.

I think he just means that there will be three Batman films, at least two Superman, Green Lantern and Flash movies and at least one Wonder Woman and Aquaman movies that can stand on their own and aren't designed largely to bring the characters into a team environment before they approach THE JUSTICE LEAGUE.

Whereas Marvel, at least in terms of its own studio films, will now have had two Iron Man films, one Hulk, Captain America and Thor film apiece, and are now going full tilt into THE AVENGERS without say, another Hulk, Captain America and Thor movie, a SHIELD movie, HAWKEYE, ANT MAN, etc. Marvel, as a studio, kind of IS smashing them all together right out of the gate. And maybe that's the way to go with Marvel's characters.

[Mr. Earle]

I like that Johns and co. made changes to GL so that Waller could be included, as well as Parallax, Krona etc. because, even though the movie doesn't have to reference other heroes or setup a JL movie, these characters are part of the larger DC universe anyway, and can be used for other future solo movies or a teamup movie. The same way the comics can use these characters for their individual stories, while they also have played a part in other character's stories. But if recurring characters like Waller are used within the individual stories, it doesn't mean it has to set up a particular story for the JLA movie, since that hasn't been figured out yet. That's when it starts taking away from the solo movie's story, trying to be all about setting up a teamup movie. But if it serves the story, I wouldn't mind seeing something like Checkmate or S.T.A.R. Labs used in more than one movie.

I still believe a JLA movie is a possibility down the line. When solo movies are established, when they see how WW has done on TV, when they finally decide if making an Aquaman movie is possible. But obviously, what Johns and co. are stressing right now is that it is not a priority.That's exactly what i meant. Waller is there for the sake of the story, but if she or even GL is referenced even briefly in Superman or Batman, then its enough for me. They dont have to use her or put pieces of the JL plot in the seperate franchises. Hell, they dont have to do anything but use the same actors.


To give you an example of a cameo that fits the story, part of Batman's personality is that he keeps tabs on everyone. So he could have a discussion with Alfred about how he monitors Arkham inmates, politicians, cops, and other heroes with various faces appearing on the screen of the batcomputer. If they ever explore that part of him, they could insert the other heroes there without trouble. Its always about how you do it.
That's not the point, it's still failed to work. Doesn't matter how good a concept is on paper, if it doesn't translate well on screen you've done nothing but waste time.

Come on man, the Shield stuff in film one was so in the background it was barely noticeable and for good reason, there was no assurances IM would take off, film two it's smack bang in the middle of Act 2, god help anyone who didn't seen the end of credits cameo, Fury just comes out of nowhere, it's an apples and oranges scenario, it may not of ruined the movie on it's own, but it sure as hell played it's part. I don't blame Favreau at all for IM2, he wanted an extra year and Marvel weren't willing to give it to him.
Like i said, it just wasnt executed properly. It doesnt mean that it cant be done better by someone else.

And i agree with the part in bold.

[RachelDawes]

I think what it really boils down to is just how much trouble the concept of a single universe on film is. It's never seamed like a concept that is feasible for film, TV yes, but not film, I wonder if Marvel have actually pondered the consequences if the remaining pre-Avengers films don't do well, what's the plan B exactly? Are they just assuming things will fall into place? That's what I want to know, especially considering filming will already be underway for Avengers next year before Thor and Cap are released, I'm really surprised more Marvel fans aren't concerned about how reckless they are being with the production scheduling of these film. I'd be screaming like no tomorrow if it was WB doing this.

They'll just bill The Avengers as another Iron Man movie, I'm sure.

I've just never understood what the hell all the rush is with them. It's not like the characters are going anywhere.

I don't know, maybe they're afraid of Downey aging, or that the superhero trend will shortly run its course. What I want to know is: what are they going to do after the Avengers if Thor and Cap aren't popular? They'll have one more IM movie and then what?

[Parker Wayne]

They'll just bill The Avengers as another Iron Man movie, I'm sure.



I don't know, maybe they're afraid of Downey aging, or that the superhero trend will shortly run its course. What I want to know is: what are they going to do after the Avengers if Thor and Cap aren't popular? They'll have one more IM movie and then what?

I believe its this. Marvel only has superheroes unlike DC, though DC still makes the argument pretty neutral since DC's non Superhero films the latter part of the decade haven't made much money and they've been awful.

[misjuevos]

dc just doesn't want to look like they copied marvel's approach. they have no choice but to do it different. too bad this could have been a good step for comic book movies. opens them up to a larger universe. i like the build up to the avengers. would have been nice to see that for the jla. besides didnt they already make a jla movie that was shelved. now johns says dc characters are too big, seems like as someone said earlier "sour grapes" indeed. dc couldn't be first to the single movie universe thing so now it will be belittled by them.

[Parker Wayne]

That's exactly what i meant. Waller is there for the sake of the story, but if she or even GL is referenced even briefly in Superman or Batman, then its enough for me. They dont have to use her or put pieces of the JL plot in the seperate franchises. Hell, they dont have to do anything but use the same actors.


To give you an example of a cameo that fits the story, part of Batman's personality is that he keeps tabs on everyone. So he could have a discussion with Alfred about how he monitors Arkham inmates, politicians, cops, and other heroes with various faces appearing on the screen of the batcomputer. If they ever explore that part of him, they could insert the other heroes there without trouble. Its always about how you do it.


I always felt that at least one throwaway reference would've been fine for these films. I also felt that people wouldn't have cared if Superman existed in the same world as Nolan's Batman.

[Boom]

^ It also showed the logistical problems associated with trying to have a shared universe. WB has the right idea because I firmly believe the whole shared universe thing is ultimately unsustainable in the long run. Like after Avengers what then? Marvel's doing so much assuming it's frightening and quite frankly reckless. It's unfair to the fan base if characters solo films are affected by the whole trying to tie everything together thing. I want a GL film, I don't want a GL film that's leading up to a JL film, I don't want hints and nods and subtle references to something that isn't important to the story at hand, I don't want characters thrown in for no reason, I want the focus to be on the character at hand. A JL film will come one day, but it doesn't need to connect multiple franchises together in order to work.
Thank you for this. I 100% agree.

[TheVileOne]

All that's ******** to me because WB are the ones that are rushing a new Superman reboot into production because of a lawsuit.

Too late to try and not copy Marvel's model because they ALREADY HAVE.

I like Geoff Johns and its cute that he can say that, but what exactly does he mean by it? He and Diane Nelson refuse to elaborate.

[The Guard]

Like after Avengers what then?

Ideally, they'll get the X-Men and The Fantastic Four back at some point, and we can have SECRET WARS: THE MOVIE. :)

[Sawyer]

Ideally, they'll get the X-Men and The Fantastic Four back at some point, and we can have SECRET WARS: THE MOVIE. :)

Fox would sabotage the **** out of them before they ever got the chance, unfortunately.

[misjuevos]

they can always go into space

[TheVileOne]

Ultimately if you want to do a Justice League movie with different casts at the same time as continuing all the other franchises its IMHO quite frankly stupid.

For example, if you happen to hit dynamite and make a star out of one lead actor as a character does that mean you are going to automatically want to shut out a top draw of your biggest and possibly most significant tentpole ever?

Would anyone seriously not want to see Downey as Iron Man in Avengers at some point? Just recast everyone including Downey and make it all separate?

[jmc]

I always felt that at least one throwaway reference would've been fine for these films.

As was done in IM1, hopefully Marvel learned their lesson from IM2, although it may be too late for Thor given filming was close to done when IM2 came out. All that's ******** to me because WB are the ones that are rushing a new Superman reboot into production because of a lawsuit.

Too late to try and not copy Marvel's model because they ALREADY HAVE.

I like Geoff Johns and its cute that he can say that, but what exactly does he mean by it? He and Diane Nelson refuse to elaborate.

In the case of Superman WB have no choice but to rush it, much to my annoyance. As for the whole copying Marvel thing I fail to see how they've done that. Batman's in his own world, Superman and GL will be, there's no build up to JL, there's no deadlines that are set in stone, if anything WB are doing the exact opposite of what Marvel are attempting.

[jmc]

Ultimately if you want to do a Justice League movie at the same time as continuing all the other franchises its IMHO quite frankly stupid.

For example, if you happen to hit dynamite and make a star out of one lead actor as a character does that mean you are going to automatically want to shut out a top draw of your biggest and possibly most significant tentpole ever?

Would anyone seriously not want to see Downey as Iron Man in Avengers at some point? Just recast everyone including Downey and make it all separate?

I think WB learned from the JL:M debacle that you don't have different versions of characters being shown at the same time, the exception being maybe an animated film. JL will come one day, but it will be after the solo films have had their run.

[TheVileOne]

Well Geoff Johns and Diane Nelson won't even say that.

And I think the reason they won't is because they truly don't know.

[jmc]

In which case the focus on the solo films is the correct one. If they're unsure of what to do with JL, it's better to put it to one side for the moment.

[misjuevos]

they have no choice, if dc tries to follow marvel it would look like they copied them. they don't want to give marvel any credit at all. just usual business tactics. sell your product like it is the greatest thing ever. i really don't care if dc would copy marvels attempt. at least they can get ideas from each other in the future. see what works and what doesn't. 2 are always better than one going at it alone. they should remember they are trying to keep comic book movies fresh and staying with the same old format of an isolated character in his own movie is getting old.

[TheVileOne]

In the case of Superman WB have no choice but to rush it, much to my annoyance. As for the whole copying Marvel thing I fail to see how they've done that. Batman's in his own world, Superman and GL will be, there's no build up to JL, there's no deadlines that are set in stone, if anything WB are doing the exact opposite of what Marvel are attempting.

They're new re-allignment model of DC Entertainment they've been doing since 2009 is bascially a model that Marvel had already basically carved out in 2006. Marvel was making the big mover and shaker moves for their properties in this way first.

Johns and Nelson are being cryptic and vague and not even really saying what they are doing. All they are saying is that they are being different than Marvel, which I don't even know what the hell that means.

So basically if they are automatically shutting down the idea of saying its all separate and no Batman and/or Superman in Justice League then they are stupid. Let's say Green Lantern takes off and is the huge hit we all want it to be. What if Ryan Reynolds receives RAVE reviews of the likes of which we saw previously for Downey as Iron Man and Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. Let's say that happens do you think Johns and Nelson and the suits in charge of Warner Bros are going to automatically say WELP WE ARE STICKING TO OUR GUNS AND MAKING THIS ALL SEPARATE SO NO RYAN REYNOLDS IN GREEN LANTERN! LET'S GET COMMON ON THE PHONE! YOU KNOW THE RAPPER THAT PUT ON A **** PERFORMANCE IN TERMINATOR SALVATION AND WAS ORIGINALLY GOING TO PLAY JOHN STEWART IN JL: M!

[jmc]

If GL takes off we'll get GL sequels. Enough said. If the films make money then it's hardly stupid. As was mention JL will come one day, but it won't be in the form of Reynolds, or Bale, or whoever's playing Superman, or Flash or WW (maybe) in this next wave of films, so I don't really know what you're worrying about.

[Parker Wayne]

^ It also showed the logistical problems associated with trying to have a shared universe. WB has the right idea because I firmly believe the whole shared universe thing is ultimately unsustainable in the long run. Like after Avengers what then? Marvel's doing so much assuming it's frightening and quite frankly reckless. It's unfair to the fan base if characters solo films are affected by the whole trying to tie everything together thing. I want a GL film, I don't want a GL film that's leading up to a JL film, I don't want hints and nods and subtle references to something that isn't important to the story at hand, I don't want characters thrown in for no reason, I want the focus to be on the character at hand. A JL film will come one day, but it doesn't need to connect multiple franchises together in order to work.

But as much as it has proven to be risky, it hasn't exactly proven to be a bad move either. All 3 of their films so far have been critcal and financially successful.

With that said, we really won't know if its worth it or not until The Avengers is actually released, though how Captain American and Thor are received will make for a better gauge.

And Avengers I'll believe Marvel will get a few more franchises back and they'll go cosmic anyway.

[Parker Wayne]

As was done in IM1, hopefully Marvel learned their lesson from IM2, although it may be too late for Thor given filming was close to done when IM2 came out.

In the case of Superman WB have no choice but to rush it, much to my annoyance. As for the whole copying Marvel thing I fail to see how they've done that. Batman's in his own world, Superman and GL will be, there's no build up to JL, there's no deadlines that are set in stone, if anything WB are doing the exact opposite of what Marvel are attempting.

Like I've said before, SHIELD was an essential part of Iron Man's story and I failed to see that GA even realized that they were focusing on The Avengers, because I didn't see much actual talk on The Avengers. I saw Fury trying to help Stark at his time of need. The actual Avengers talk didn't happen until the end. Only comic fans took it as more than what it was.

And I'm pretty sure Thor will tie into SHIELD very nicely from the looks of the Comic Con trailer.

In which case the focus on the solo films is the correct one. If they're unsure of what to do with JL, it's better to put it to one side for the moment.

I wouldn't say its the correct move yet. Its a safe move, but I doubt its the only way to go in terms of these films.

[jmc]

But as much as it has proven to be risky, it hasn't exactly proven to be a bad move either. All 3 of their films so far have been critcal and financially successful.

With that said, we really won't know if its worth it or not until The Avengers is actually released, though how Captain American and Thor are received will make for a better gauge.

And Avengers I'll believe Marvel will get a few more franchises back and they'll go cosmic anyway.

Just because Hulk didn't flop doesn't mean it succeeded, let's not kid ourselves here. Much like the film itself, it might not have flopped, but it under performed greatly. Like I've said before, SHIELD was an essential part of Iron Man's story and I failed to see that GA even realized that they were focusing on The Avengers, because I didn't see much actual talk on The Avengers. I saw Fury trying to help Stark at his time of need. The actual Avengers talk didn't happen until the end. Only comic fans took it as more than what it was.

People keep saying it was an essential part of the story but what would have happened if you removed those elements from the film? You remove Fury, Black Widow, the shield stuff, the whole basically giving Stark the antidote thing (which was a total cop out), what do we really lose by that stuff being eliminated? It's not really essential to the plot that started the film, in fact the first Act feels like a completely different film such is the change in plot direction. It may be essential in the comics, I'm no expert on the character so I can't really comment, but it was poorly executed on film, I don't recall the last time I saw a film that started so strongly only to then suddenly collapse half way through. And I'm pretty sure Thor will tie into SHIELD very nicely from the looks of the Comic Con trailer.



I wouldn't say its the correct move yet. Its a safe move, but I doubt its the only way to go in terms of these films.

When you're dealing with million dollar franchises the safe option is the best option. Marvel are lucky (for the moment anyway), but law of averages says you cannot sustain hit after hit, something will crash and burn, after which big daddy Disney may step in. If continuity is important to Marvel then fine do it, but I think the way they're going about it is reckless and are doing a disservice to their fan base.

[misjuevos]

When you're dealing with million dollar franchises the safe option is the best option. Marvel are lucky (for the moment anyway), but law of averages says you cannot sustain hit after hit, something will crash and burn, after which big daddy Disney may step in. If continuity is important to Marvel then fine do it, but I think the way they're going about it is reckless and are doing a disservice to their fan base.

the safe option is the best option? if peter jackson would have played it safe he would only have made 1 lotr movie at a time. then he would be in the mess he is in now with the hobbit. he took a risk and made 3 films at once and they were a hit. dc took a risk with nolan's version of batman. no playing it safe is what dc did when they got singer to do superman. they figured he did good with x-men why not superman. then they decided to take a risk with nolan and had success.

[jmc]

Actually it was New Line that wanted to make 3 films, Jackson was content with two films, it was New Line that insisted on it being 3. The safe option is about not worrying about trying to interconnect everything and just focus on making the movie not the universe, all big budget films are risks, it's about taking calculated risks, hence why WW isn't getting a film.

[misjuevos]

at the end of iron man and TIH you got a glimpse of a bigger world. then in iron man 2 you couldnt just leave shield out after that. they are part of his new bigger world. i had no problems with the involvement of shield in it. if they weren't there i would have felt the previous ending was just useless.

[jmc]

Don't be ridiculous, of course you could have left them out.

[Parker Wayne]

Just because Hulk didn't flop doesn't mean it succeeded, let's not kid ourselves here. Much like the film itself, it might not have flopped, but it under performed greatly.

I counted DVDs too, in which it had gotten better buzz and was successful.

People keep saying it was an essential part of the story but what would have happened if you removed those elements from the film? You remove Fury, Black Widow, the shield stuff, the whole basically giving Stark the antidote thing (which was a total cop out), what do we really lose by that stuff being eliminated? It's not really essential to the plot that started the film, in fact the first Act feels like a completely different film such is the change in plot direction. It may be essential in the comics, I'm no expert on the character so I can't really comment, but it was poorly executed on film, I don't recall the last time I saw a film that started so strongly only to then suddenly collapse half way through.

Then you're just changing it for the sake of changing it. He was essential not only because of that stupid antidote scene, but also because he led the way for the permanent solution.

I agree that antidote thing was a total cop out and a stupid Deus Ex Machima moment that wasn't needed, but I feel like Fury was important to the plot along with SHIELD.

When you're dealing with million dollar franchises the safe option is the best option. Marvel are lucky (for the moment anyway), but law of averages says you cannot sustain hit after hit, something will crash and burn, after which big daddy Disney may step in. If continuity is important to Marvel then fine do it, but I think the way they're going about it is reckless and are doing a disservice to their fan base.

Its not reckless when it has proven to work so far. I feel like you're jumping to the wrong conclusion when despite what going on behind closed doors, Marvel looks like they know what they want from their films a lot more than DC does.

Johns seems to be going back and forth, confusing many about what DC wants to do.

[Boom]

Actually it was New Line that wanted to make 3 films, Jackson was content with two films, it was New Line that insisted on it being 3.
When PJ originally went to Miramax with the proposed LoTR trilogy, they wanted him to cut it down to two movies. He didn't want to do that, so he went to New Line. PJ always wanted three films.

That's my understanding of it.

[misjuevos]

Don't be ridiculous, of course you could have left them out.

i said after the end of iron man 1 you couldnt leave shield out. you would have wondered where they were or what was the point of that scene. also coulson and shield were in iron man 1 before the nick fury scene. they showed up to help pepper and became fodder so she could get away. them showing up in iron man 2 to cure tony is more of the same. they were apart of iron man 1 and were expected to be apart of iron man 2.