Justice League Movie: Blogged and Memo to WB

[Kevin Smith]

Welcome to "Justice League Movie: Blogged and Memo to WB", where I (and you) let WB and others know what I want in a JLA film, and how to make it worth while. In other words, these are my suggestions on how to make JLA great.

I for one hope and think it will happen. And while I'd love to see individual films first leading up into a big ensemble JLA film, it isn't gonna happen. A JLA film is the best chance we've got at seeing of DC's finest on screen. If WB/DC had been smarter a few years ago when they started to recycle the Batman and Superman film franchises, they could've set the two respective films up in the same universe, establishing a DC film U, but they didn't, so there is no way that we'll be seeing individual films that lead into JLA first, and we especially won't be seeing Singer's Superman and Nolan's Batman in an ensemble movie together. Just face the reality and accept that a JLA film will happen first, hopefully it will be good and will serve as a springboard for individual DC character films like Green Lantern, The Flash, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, etc. Short of doing individual character films first that lead into an Justice League film, this is the best way t o do it.

2010 IS THE ONLY CHANCE

Look, Marvel has the Avengers scheduled for release in 2011, which, I don't know if you've noticed, is gonna be HUGE. If DC wants to beat Marvel to the punch with a big superhero team movie, a JLA film HAS to be put out BEFORE the Avengers. If not, Marvel will have out done DC in just about every way possible on screen and a JLA movie will seem second best, like a Johnny-come-lately after the Avengers comes out. I say get this thing into production and let's get it out there, dammit, before people get sick of these movies!


RESPECT THE SOURCE

The closer a comics film is to the source material, the more successful it is. Iron Man and Spider-Man, among other films, are proof of that. There is no need to completely reinvent the characters from what they were in the comics into.....whatever. Now when I say "respect the source", I don't mean to tell an exact comic book story, panel for panel, on film, I mean keep the status quo of the comic books, the simple, obvious stuff, and tell just tell a new story with it. For instance, don't give Superman a bastard child, make Batman a killer, have Krypton never explode, have the Martian Manhunter be from someplace other than Mars, alter costumes majorly, etc, don't do things that go against the status quo that the comics have established over the course of years, the things that are constants with all the characters' stories. Just play with the toys that are ALREADY THERE. Keep the characters' stories, costumes, and everything else as close to the books as realistically possible and create a story that is best fit for film.

NO SECOND STRINGERS

This film has gotta have the classic, original, A-list lineup: Superman. Batman. Wonder Woman. The Flash. Green Lantern. Martian Manhunter. Aquaman. Anything else would be an abomination. It's gotta be the A-List, especially in the first movie.


NO LESS THAN 2 HOURS & 15 MINUTES LONG

A film this size, with SO many (iconic) characters, simply can't be done under 2 hours. It. Just. Can't. I've heard rumors that the film was supposed to be 90 minutes, that's a completely ridiculous runtime and will be crap if cut like that. All the characters must be well developed, anything under 2 1/4 hours ain't gonna cut it. WB, you guys have a Batman film coming up that's over 2 hours and 30 minutes, a JLA with a similar runtime shouldn't be a problem.

HOLY TRINITY

Superman. Batman. Wonder Woman. Capitalize on these guys! Advertise 'em like crazy! Everyone knows who Superman and Batman are, most people can recognize WW, people will go crazy over them being in a movie together! People who are unfamiliar with the other League members who may not even be aware of the JLA as a comics team will go and see a movie with Superman and Batman in it. It must live up to the hype. These 3 must be featured very prominently throughout the film. A JLA movie can't be made without the big 3. To quote Brad Meltzer on the matter, "That'd be like throwing a seventies party and saying 'no crappy clothes'".

HAL JORDAN

I know that DC/WB is keen on using John Stewart to add some ethnic diversity to the team (Martian Manhunter is green, but I guess that doesn't count cuz he isn't real :p), and that's fine by me because Hal Jordan is getting his own Green Lantern film. But Hal Jordan is a major fan favorite, and a lot of people have expressed how pissed off they are over John being used instead Hal in the film. Is there a solution? Yes. Compromise. John Stewart can be the main Green Lantern in the JLA film, but have Hal show up in a scene and converse with John. Just 40 seconds of face-time for Hal Jordan and fans will go wild and will love the movie to death. If Marvel can get Tony Stark to have a 90 second scene with Thunderbolt Ross at the end of Incredible Hulk then surely DC/WB can get Hal to cameo in JLA. Besides, what better way to establish to audiences that there's more than one Green Lantern then to have Hal and John appear in the same film? This will also get more people interested in the Green Lantern film, and will help them accept Hal Jordan, who is a white guy, being the GL in the GL film. So there ya have it, John is the main GL featured in the JLA film, but Hal shows up for a half a minute cameo. Done. Everyone's happy. It doesn't drastically change the film one bit, if anything, it gets it more fan support.

THE FLASH

I don't know for sure which Flash WB and CO are planning on using, but may I make a suggestion? BARRY ALLEN. Why? Well, first of all, he's the most self contained of all the Flashes, you don't have to know who Jay Garrick, Wally West, or Bart Allen are in order to know who Barry is. To tell Wally's story, Barry has to be established first, Wally's character's entire reason for being is is based on Barry Allen. Wally was Kid Flash, Barry's sidekick and nephew, like Robin to Batman, before he became Flash, and from what I hear, WB isn't keen on there being more than 1 Flash in their film, I don't blame them. As if it isn't enough for audiences to accept one speedster and the rest of the JLA, they have to accept a Flash sidekick, who's essentially a miniature Barry Allen? Pretty thin, and not a good idea for the first big screen outing for the character from where I sit. Secondly, Barry Allen has the coolest secret identity; he's a forensic scientist, which is, I don't know if you've noticed, an extremely popular job in entertainment these days. Look at CSI Miami, Bones, Silent Witness, Criminal Minds, Dexter, NCIS, Monk, all popular and successful shows about forensic scientists, a superhero with this job would be very well accepted, Barry is that superhero. Also, he's the only Flash to consistently have a secret identity. Up until recently (for over 18 years), Wally's identity was publicly known, he was viewed as a sort of celebrity, similar to the Fantastic 4. Barry Allen also has the best origin (also the most self contained); "Barry Allen is a 24 year old police scientist with a reputation for being very slow, deliberate, and frequently late, which frustrated his girlfriend/eventual fiancée, Iris West. One night, as he was preparing to leave work, a lightning bolt shattered a case full of chemicals and spilled them all over him. As a result, Barry found that he could run extremely fast, had matching reflexes, and had complete control over his molecular structure. He donned a red suit sporting a lightning bolt, dubbed himself the Flash, and became a crimefighter" (- wikipedia). 'Nuff said. He was also a founding member of the original JLA, even suggesting the word "justice" be used in the alliance's name. Barry would be the best Flash to translate to film. The only way they could possibly use Wally would be if they took Barry's story and gave it to Wally, much like the JLU show did. Not to mention that Geoff Johns and Ethan Van Sciver are re-launching the Flash comic this January (Jan 2009) with Barry Allen as the lead Flash again in Flash: Rebirth, much like they did with Hal Jordan in the Green Lantern comic back in 2005, so it would be great if the on screen Flash were the same as the Flash in the current comic books. Also, WB and CO, while the Flash character, namely Barry and Wally, has always maintained a good sense of humor, PLEASE, PLEASE, don't make the Flash a complete joke. He can be humorous, even the team's so called "comedy relief", but do not make the Flash into a joke. I don't think he should be played as jokey as he was on the JL/JLU show played him, the Flash on that show's personality was much more in line with Bart Allen's from his Impulse days then that of the actual Wally West or Barry Allen. I don't want to see the Flash doing something stupid every time he shows up just for a cheap laugh from the audience, The Flash is a sensible guy, not an idiot and shouldn't be played that way.

NO MORE SUPERMAN THE WUSS

WB and CO, Take a cue from the JLU show and Byrne era Superman and have Supes kick some long over due ass this time, please. All the way back to the Reeve films, WB has played Superman as a punching bag wimp. No more. Let Superman cut loose, Superman shouldn't take **** from no one, let him FIGHT something. Give us a the REAL Superman, the tough, ass kicking Superman.

BATMAN: THE THINKING MAN

Fer godsakes, this Batman has got to be a smart one. The JLA Batman needs to be Batman the detective, the tactician, the thinking man, the guy who can outsmart everyone, who's physically the least powerful on the team, but if he puts his mind to it he can do anything. If he puts his mind to it he could destroy every member on the team. That's the only way Batman can be valuable to the League, he's "the smart one". He's also got to be the technological genius, the guy with all the gadgets and things, he's got to be inventive, he built the Watchtower, the League's headquarters, the batmobile, etc. Those aspects of Batman need to be focused on very heavily in this film, because if they aren't, Batman's just a guy who's good at hiding and beating up people, which isn't very impressive or useful when compared to the guy who can throw mountains, or the guy who can move at lightspeed, or the guy who can read minds and fly, etc. The JLA Batman has to be a bi t t more of a sci fi type Batman instead of the "real world" Batman of the Nolan's films in order to fit into the world of Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter, and the JLA.

A VILLAIN WORTHY OF THEIR TALENTS

Darkseid. The White Martians. Brainiac. Mongul. Amazo. Max Lord and the OMACs. Despero. Anyone of these would make a great choice for the JLA's first big screen outing. There should be lots of fights and battles throughout the movie, Transformers scale stuff. Have Supes and Darkseid have a showdown while the rest of the League fights parademons, stuff like that. It has to be HUGE.

NO ORIGIN, PLEASE

There's no need to have Justice League be an origin film. I just don't see the reason. They're 7 superheroes, there doesn't have to be an elaborate explanation for why they team exists. If individual characters' origins are mentioned or explained briefly, that's fine, but there's no need for this to be a long winded origin film, IMO.

STAPLES OF THE LEAGUE

Martian Manhunter is a MUST. He must be in this film. He's got many awesome abilities, he looks cool, he's one of DC's most interesting characters, he has to be in this film. He's become one of DC's most popular characters in such a short amount of time because of the cartoons. Even my mom likes him. He doesn't need a part as major as Superman, Batman, WW, Flash, or even GL, but he needs to be there and have a purpose. Aquaman should be in it too, however he won't need to be shown that much, out of all the characters, he could have the least amount of face-time.That said, when he does show up, WB and CO, don't treat him as a joke because he lives under water and can communicate with sea creatures. Show why he's valuable to the League. If not, then don't even include him in the film. Perhaps in sequels The Atom (Ray Palmer), and Green Arrow (Oliver Queen), Hawkman & Hawkgirl, and Black Canary could have cameos.

CASTING WITH JUSTICE

Cast very carefully. If many unknowns are cast for the heroes, they must be able to look and sound like them and ACT. However, a film like this needs some star power, a familiar face needs to be in it, whether it's as a villain or hero or even a supporting character, there must be at least 1-2 big names with a project this size, in my opinion. Granted, some of the characters will sell the movie itself, like Superman and Batman, but the rest of the Leaguers, unfortunately, won't be getting that much attention unless there's a bigger name playing them or there's a big name in the film. Look at Iron Man, most people had no idea who that character was but they knew who Robert Downey Jr. was, and that's what got their attention, that he was playing a character like that, and ultimately, I think that factored into the film's success. Something similar needs to be done with the League. I'm not saying cast big names as all the heroes or even most the heroes, but for some par ts, maybe a vi llain, there need s to be a big name cast. While GOOD unknowns are...good, a film this size can't support itself on only nobodies, a big name needs to be thrown in somewhere.

GET PEOPLE WHO GIVE A DAMN

This goes for director, writer, costume designer, etc, if the people don't care about the source material, then the film doesn't work. Remember, the closer it is to the source material, the more successful the film is, which is why it's so important that the makers of the movie care about the JLA.

THEY HAVE TO LOOK LIKE THE JLA

Look, the JLA ain't X-Men. Their suits are iconic, they mean something, they're individuals, they're a major part of what makes them so recognizable. Wonder Woman needs to look like Wonder Woman. Superman needs to look like Superman. The Flash needs to look The Flash. Martian Manhunter needs to look like the Martian Manhunter, and dare I say it, Batman needs to look like Batman. I'm not saying that the suits need to be made out of cheap spandex and tighty tights, but the overall look of the characters needs maintain the appearance they've had in the comics. Make the suits out of stylish materials, like the Spider-Man movie suit, or Daredevil movie suit, or even the Superman Returns suit's material, there's a way to do the comic book suits and make them look good without compromising the classic comic book looks. It doesn't have to be "Adam West" or plastic/rubbery Tim Burton, there are plenty of different styles and materials to chose from to make each character look believable and respectful of their comics counterparts. They shouldn't look like X-Men or wear black rubber/plastic or junk hugging, peter pan tights. There is a way to get the costumes right.

IMPRESSIVE. MOST IMPRESSIVE

Do something people have never seen before, make the audience feel like they've been somewhere. Do some really epic stuff, impress people with the SFX and fight scenes. Do trivial things that will excite people (examples) like Superman and Flash having a race, show how Martian Manhunter shape shifts, have GL make giant hands or whatever with his ring, do a close up of the Flash vibrating his molecules so he can pass thru solid objects, or have him run up the side of a building, stuff like that and more. Make people remember the movie. Do some Star Wars-ian, real epic type stuff.

TEAM SCORE

The JLA movie soundtrack must not be anything short of Williamsesque if you catch my drift. It can't be filled with secular tunes that will make the film look dated ten years from now. It also must have a score that holds up with the rest of the film, unlike some of the greatest latest comics film, such as Iron Man, Batman Begins, and Incredible Hulk (great stories, poor scores). In other words, WB and CO, get somebody like John Willaims to score it.

NOT ANOTHER CARTOON

No way should it be anything other than live action, dammit. I think it would take away from the film's box office and wouldn't quite do the characters, who have been waiting a loooooongtime to be in a live action, big budget movie, if you'll pardon my choice of word, JUSTICE. Save the "mo-cap" crap video game stuff or whatever for DTVs or TV. Besides, THE AVENGERS is gonna be live action.

AN AMERICAN NAME

Look, I'm all for having "America" in the name, but I have a feeling that Justice League of America would make for too long of a title, and not everyone would get the acronym "JLA", plus WB and CO are concerned with how to market a film with "America" in its name overseas. So I say that the film simply be called "Justice League" and in the film the League can be referred to as JLA (Justice League of America) and Justice league, JLA can be the logo on their headquarters, equipment, etc. It's a nice compromise and I think it'd work.

DON'T LISTEN TO THE HATERS

I'm talking about the ungrateful nits who say they don't ever want a JLA film (but will go see it opening day heheh). The people who are constantly prophecying "doom and gloom" for a JLA film, a film of which they actually know very, very little about. Don't worry about them. Once some pictures and a trailer are released they'll be all over how awesome the film is, so pay no attention to the petty whiners who don't want a JLA film made cuz it'll "get in the way of their Batman and/or Superman films", which is complete BS, by the way. The more success and exposure these characters have, the better, it keeps them household names (in a good way), makes more money for DC/WB, and is a win/win scenario for we, the fans, who get to see more of our respective heroes. I have no problem with Bale and Routh's Batman and Superman being on screen the same time as the JLA's Batman and Superman. I will go see them all. (Just make it good! :D)

Now hopefully, somebody important reading this will take my suggestions into consideration and we'll have a truly awesome JLA film. I wish WB and CO the best with all their DC Comics based projects and hope for the best with this film.

[Webhead2006]

Great post man, that is what JLA film should be.

[theMan-Bat]

Absolutely.

[dnno1]

I have a few comments. I know that a lot of people spout out comments like "respecting" or "being faithful to' the source material, but isn't it really about being creative and using things about the characters that we like to see and not necessarily sticking to the source material? I can think of a number of films that did (remain faithful to the source material) and turned out to be big disappointments (i.e. the first "Captain America" and "Fantastic Four" films back in the early 90's and "Tank Girl"). Secondly how do we know what the characters really sound like to make a judgment on who should be cast? Their dialogs are all in print. You couldn't mean we should base it off the cartoons since there are many versions of the characters speech pattern that we could follow. Finally, I know that John Stewart was originally chosen for diversity, but he contributed to making the JL and JLU series a big hit. I think he is more well known and popular amongst the younger crowd and it would be a big disappointment to see a loss of attendance if he were not in the film. I think they should "dance with the woman that brung ya" in that aspect. Outside of that those are very good points and I am sure that somebody is taking note.

[darkseid26]

very well done KS

[GreenKToo]

Good post Kevin.

dnno1: those films you refered to that remained faithful to the source material in the early 90's but disappointed, had budgets of about $2.99. :D

If W.B. gives J.L. a big budget, remains close to the source material, and gets good actors in the roles, then it should be a success.
Do it on the cheap, and we'll be lucky to ever see these heroes on the big screen again. At least for a long time anyway.

[Brainiac58]

Great Post Kevin! You should e-mail it to WB. I would be happy with either Hal or John as Green lantern or Barry or Wally as Flash. Otherwise I agree 100%.

[GreenKToo]

Worth a shot, but I doubt it will do anygood.

EDIT: in case anyone cares, Boom is having a J.L. marathon all day today.

[dnno1]

Good post Kevin.

dnno1: those films you refered to that remained faithful to the source material in the early 90's but disappointed, had budgets of about $2.99. :D

If W.B. gives J.L. a big budget, remains close to the source material, and gets good actors in the roles, then it should be a success.
Do it on the cheap, and we'll be lucky to ever see these heroes on the big screen again. At least for a long time anyway.

Ah, but it wasn't sticking to the source material that was their downfall now, was it? Even with a big budget you could still make a film go south or disappoint even if you stick to the source material ("Superman Returns", "Batman and Robin"). Remember, "The Matrix" was done on the cheap and it turned out to be a big hit. It is really more about being creative and having things that people like about the character in the film than being faithful to the source material.

[dnno1]

Double post.

[Webhead2006]

Good post Kevin.

dnno1: those films you refered to that remained faithful to the source material in the early 90's but disappointed, had budgets of about $2.99. :D

If W.B. gives J.L. a big budget, remains close to the source material, and gets good actors in the roles, then it should be a success.
Do it on the cheap, and we'll be lucky to ever see these heroes on the big screen again. At least for a long time anyway.
Good post, yea do things cheaply and not caring for the material will be a big downfall for the film.

[Kevin Smith]

I have a few comments. I know that a lot of people spout out comments like "respecting" or "being faithful to' the source material, but isn't it really about being creative and using things about the characters that we like to see and not necessarily sticking to the source material? I can think of a number of films that did (remain faithful to the source material) and turned out to be big disappointments (i.e. the first "Captain America" and "Fantastic Four" films back in the early 90's and "Tank Girl"). Secondly how do we know what the characters really sound like to make a judgment on who should be cast? Their dialogs are all in print. You couldn't mean we should base it off the cartoons since there are many versions of the characters speech pattern that we could follow. Finally, I know that John Stewart was originally chosen for diversity, but he contributed to making the JL and JLU series a big hit. I think he is more well known and popular amongst the younger crowd and it would be a big disappointment to see a loss of attendance if he were not in the film. In that aspect I think they should "dance with the woman that brung ya" in that aspect. Outside of that those are very good points and I am sure that somebody is taking note.

Thanks for your comment. I've edited the section of the post regarding what I think respecting the source is, I advise you to read that. :D

[Kevin Smith]

Webhead, ManBat, dnno1, darkseid, GreenToo, Brainiac, and to everyone else who comments, thank you for your kind words. I appreciate you guys taking the time to read my post. :D

[Kevin Smith]

Good post, yea do things cheaply and not caring for the material will be a big downfall for the film.


Exactly. :)

[Kevin Smith]

Great Post Kevin! You should e-mail it to WB. I would be happy with either Hal or John as Green lantern or Barry or Wally as Flash. Otherwise I agree 100%.

I'd actually email it to WB if I had some contact info, lol. But in the mean time, because of the positive reactions this post has recieved (thanks to you guys :D), I'm considering posting this at a couple other sites I'm a member at (does that count as spamming???).

And in regards to the Flash/GL comment, I think that it's better that the film isn't an origin if they're going to use John Stewart as GL, that way they can still have it as tho the original 7 (Supes, Bats, WW, Barry, Hal, Aquaman, and MM) actually founded the League, but they don't have to show it, they can reference it if need be. To do an origin with John as GL would kinda contradict the comics mythos, IMO (same with Wally as Flash). And as for Flash I think it's good that they use Barry in JLA, get audiences familiar with him, establish him, as he is pretty much the foundation for Wally and Bart, without him they don't come into being, then do an individual Flash film with Barry, and in the second Flash film introduce Wally and maybe have Wally take over as Flash. That way people will get Wally West and won't go "Barry who?" whenever Barry comes up. Like the comics, which had established Barry over the course of 30 years and established Wally as his protege, so when Wally became Flash it didn't come out of left field for people, something similar should be done with the movies, IMO. :D

[Kevin Smith]

Worth a shot, but I doubt it will do anygood.

EDIT: in case anyone cares, Boom is having a J.L. marathon all day today.

It is? Awesome. I have comcast now, and unfortunately I don't think Boom is available. I have all the DVDs tho lol. :D

[TheVileOne]

WB won't beat Marvel to the punch. And if the point is to try and rush the movie and beat Marvel at Avengers, then it will definitely fail.

[Webhead2006]

Yea it would probably fail terribly if they tried to rush it out to beat marvel's avengers. I hope they atless are taking a look at what marvel's approach is doing and try to get atless flash/gl solo film out in like 2010/2011. But since there is a chance wb/dc could end up losing superman in 2013 the whole idea of doing jla now is a good idea cause if they wait and lose the rights we couldnt see supes in a jla film and that would suck not having him around in the film.

[The Major]

Ah, but it wasn't sticking to the source material that was their downfall now, was it?

Why don't you like comic films to be faithful to the source material? Not using source material in an adaption is a waste of time. They may as well just call it something else.



Even with a big budget you could still make a film go south or disappoint even if you stick to the source material ("Superman Returns", "Batman and Robin").

SR and Batman & Robin didn't stick to the source material. That's why comic fans hate them so much.

Being nothing like the comics was the least of B & R's problems.

Remember, "The Matrix" was done on the cheap and it turned out to be a big hit. It is really more about being creative and having things that people like about the character in the film than being faithful to the source material.

It may have been done on the cheap but it was done by film makers who could deliver with that budget with a great cast.

Matrix wasn't an established property with source material in another medium, either. The films were the source material and no-one knew what it was before they released them. If it tanked nobody would have cared.

[theMan-Bat]

NO MORE SUPERMAN THE WUSS

WB and CO, Take a cue from the JLU show and Byrne era Superman and have Supes kick some long over due ass this time, please. All the way back to the Reeve films, WB has played Superman as a punching bag wimp. No more. Let Superman cut loose, Superman shouldn't take **** from no one, let him FIGHT something. Give us a the REAL Superman, the tough, ass kicking Superman.

Totally!!! :up: That's what I've been saying!

BATMAN: THE THINKING MAN


The JLA Batman has to be a bi t t more of a sci fi type Batman instead of the "real world" Batman of the Nolan's films in order to fit into the world of Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter, and the JLA.That is exactly it. :up:

A VILLAIN WORTHY OF THEIR TALENTS

Darkseid. The White Martians. Brainiac. Mongul. Amazo. Max Lord and the OMACs. Despero. Anyone of these would make a great choice for the JLA's first big screen outing. There should be lots of fights and battles throughout the movie, Transformers scale stuff. Have Supes and Darkseid have a showdown while the rest of the League fights parademons, stuff like that. It has to be HUGE.

There is so much potential for Justice League movie villains.

CASTING WITH JUSTICE

Cast very carefully. If many unknowns are cast for the heroes, they must be able to look and sound like them and ACT. However, a film like this needs some star power, a familiar face needs to be in it, whether it's as a villain or hero or even a supporting character, there must be at least 1-2 big names with a project this size, in my opinion. Look at Iron Man, most people had no idea who that character was but they knew who Robert Downey Jr. was, and that's what got their attention, that he was playing a character like that, and ultimately, I think that factored into the film's success. Something similar needs to be done with the League. While GOOD unknowns are...good, a film this size can't support itself on only nobodies.

Absolutely! And don't cast predominantly younger actors like Smallville, who George Miller hopes would "grow into their roles someday." I want the Justice League, grown up men and women, not Peter Parker's, or "cool" inexperienced stupid collage age brats. The adult Justice League, not Superboy, Batboy and Wonder Girl, not Teen Titans or Smallville: The Movie!
This:
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/4214/rossjla1ub0.jpg
Not more of this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/Smallville_justice.jpg


TEAM SCORE

The JLA movie soundtrack must not be anything short of Williamsesque if you catch my drift. It can't be filled with secular tunes that will make the film look dated ten years from now. It also must have a score that holds up with the rest of the film, unlike some of the greatest latest comics film, such as Iron Man, Batman Begins, and Incredible Hulk (great stories, poor scores). In other words, WB and CO, get somebody like John Willaims to score it.

Danny Elfman! He would give Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman their own individual scores.

NOT ANOTHER CARTOON

No way should it be anything other than live action, dammit. I think it would take away from the film's box office and wouldn't quite do the characters, who have been waiting a loooooongtime to be in a live action, big budget movie, if you'll pardon my choice of word, JUSTICE. Save the "mo-cap" crap video game stuff or whatever for DTVs or TV. Besides, THE AVENGERS is gonna be live action.

Right. New Frontier is great, now give us a live-action Justice League movie, and please take it seriously.

AN AMERICAN NAME

Look, I'm all for having "America" in the name, but I have a feeling that Justice League of America would make for too long of a title, and not everyone would get the acronym "JLA", plus WB and CO are concerned with how to market a film with "America" in its name overseas. So I say that the film simply be called "Justice League" and in the film the League can be referred to as JLA (Justice League of America) and Justice league, JLA can be the logo on their headquarters, equipment, etc. It's a nice compromise and I think it'd work.

Good idea. Just Justice League, or simply, Justice.

[Tag279]

Totally!!! :up: That's what I've been saying!

That's is exactly it. :up:

There is so much potential for Justice League movie villains.

Abosultely! And don't cast predominantly younger actors like Smallville, who George Miller hopes would "grow into their roles someday." I want the Justice League, grown up men and women, not Peter Parker's, or "cool" inexperienced stupid college-age brats. The adult Justice League, not Superboy, Batboy and Wonder Girl, not Teen Titans or Smallville: The Movie!
This:
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/4214/rossjla1ub0.jpg
Not more of this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/Smallville_justice.jpg


Danny Elfman! He would give Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman their own individual score.

Right. New Frontier is great, now give us a live-action Justice League movie, and please take it seriously.

Good idea. Just Justice League, or simply, Justice.

Man-Bat I agree with you 100% And Kevin great post :word:

"WB won't beat Marvel to the punch. And if the point is to try and rush the movie and beat Marvel at Avengers, then it will definitely fail." (The vile one)

And vile one, you hit the nail on the head; Personally I don't see what is wrong with both JLA or the Avengers out in 2010 during the same summer. One at the beging and the other at the middle or end. Hell I would love it.

DC has got to do an origin story for a couple of the characters just for the sake of depth. Aquaman and The Flash IMO need an origin story done to introduce them. Bats Supes and WW don't need origin stories most folks are familiar with them.

These heroes need a reason to come together. And the writers of a JLA film need to keep this in mind. THe problem has got to be something big.

[The Major]

Bats Supes and WW don't need origin stories most folks are familiar with them.


This is where I disagree with you.

The public know all about Batman and Superman since WB has been flooding their entertainment branches with material for decades.

WW has only had the Linda Carter tv show, Super Friends and JLU. The only version which did a good job of this was JLU and they still radically changed her origin. I bet most people don't actually know her mythos or who the big bads are she has in her rogues gallery.

WW hasn't had one good big budget solo film, Batman and Superman have had several.

Man-Bat and Kevin Smith:

Great posts!

[Tag279]

This is where I disagree with you.

The public know all about Batman and Superman since WB has been flooding their entertainment branches with material for deades.

WW has only had the Linda Carter tv show, Super Friends and JLU. The only version which did a good job of this was JLU and they still radically changed her origin. I bet most people actually know her mythos or who the big bads are she has in her rogues gallery.

WW hasn't had one good big budget solo film, Batman and Superman have had several.

Man-Bat and Kevin Smith:

Great posts!

You have a point WonderWoman does need an origin story I take it for granted because I know her history.:cwink:

[dnno1]

Why don't you like comic films to be faithful to the source material? Not using source material in an adaption is a waste of time. They may as well just call it something else.

Two reasons. None of them really are and we have to respect the creative rights of the film makers. Some of them feel that they have a moral obligation to innovate and to create stories that they feel are their expression and will sell to the public at large. This could often mean that the storylines or elements of the character will change to suit. Plus being "faithful" in the technical sense would actually mean that films would need to be produced verbatim like the comics, which is never the case.

SR and Batman & Robin didn't stick to the source material. That's why comic fans hate them so much.

Oh they did. It was the other source material that was available to them (the 1960's "Batman" TV show). They just sauced it up by adding wrinkles that were kind of consistent with some of the Batman and Robin stories that were in the comics. I think a lot of fans were disappointed in the fact that the villain Bane had a diminutive role in the film when they expected him to be an arch villain type. Now I will admit that they did change the origin of Batgirl, though.


It may have been done on the cheap but it was done by film makers who could deliver with that budget with a great cast.

Yeah, the same guys who recently did Speed Racer (BTW, "The Matrix" did have errors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ0v5H3Uctw&feature=related) in it).

Matrix wasn't an established property with source material in another medium, either. The films were the source material and no-one knew what it was before they released them. If it tanked nobody would have cared.

Y3tF7TL0Qh4

"Ghost in the Shell", Major. "Ghost in the Shell".

[The Major]

Two reasons. None of them really are and we have to respect the creative rights of the film makers.

Why should I respect them when they practically spit on the comics they're supposedly adapting?

I do respect film makers who actually do respect the comics they're adapting and do a good job with it. They've actually earned it.


Some of them feel that they have a moral obligation to innovate and to create stories that they feel are their expression and will sell to the public at large.

They can still do this with adaptions.

It comes down to whether the right people are hired for the job and they understand and respect what they're adapting.

This could often mean that the storylines or elements of the character will change to suit.

Storylines and characters can still be changed and still good while respecting a property.

If a film maker can't do this they should be replaced by someone who can.


Plus being "faithful" in the technical sense would actually mean that films would need to be produced verbatim like the comics, which is never the case.

Never said they have to be 100% faithful but they must be respectful and understand the property the adapting.

Sure, some stuff won't work and they need to change stuff but there has to be good reasons for why they do it and replace it with stuff which is better then what the source material had which actually makes sense.


Oh they did. I was the other source material that was available to them (the 1960's "Batman" TV show).

That's not source material.

The real source material is the comics. There is no such thing as "other source material". Either it's the source or it isn't.

It would be the same if they adapted a video-game. That video-game would be the source material no matter how many comics, tv show,cartoons, novels or movies were made of it. That never changes.


They just sauced it up by adding wrinkles that were kind of consistent with some of the Batman and Robin stories that were in the comics.

What things did B & R have in common with the comics? What issues? What storylines?

The era which had the "friendly" Batman in comics don't count. Those comics were directly influenced by the tv show. Thank god that ended.

I think a lot of fans were disappointed in the fact that the villain Bane had a diminutive role in the film when they expected him to be an arch villain type. Now I will admit that they did change the origin of Batgirl, though.

Of course they were.

This was Bane's introduction to the public. Instead of making him an interesting, intelligent threat who was worthy of Batman's time like in the comics they made him a boring Hulk rip-off.

Now I will admit that they did change the origin of Batgirl, though.

They changed everything about her, not just her origin.

Made her much less interesting, too.

Yeah, the same guys who recently did speed racer.

Doesn't mean they don't have talent. If they didn't they'd have no hits at all.


Y3tF7TL0Qh4

"Ghost in the Shell", Major. "Ghost in the Shell".

That's not the Matrix source material. That's why its title is "Ghost in a Shell" not "The Matrix".

They were heavily inspired by the anime but that doesn't mean it has any direct link to the source material. Both are seperate franchises, and the source material to that anime is the manga by Masamune Shirow.

The first time Matrix appeared in any form was in the first movie.

[GreenKToo]

I'd hire alex ross and show each heroes origin in comic panels in the opening credits.
You could also have a smattering of their origins in flashback scenes scattered throughout the film..

[Webhead2006]

Yea that would be cool do something like spiderman 2/3 or TIH to have quick flashs of pieces of origins with all the heroes would be cool.

[dnno1]

Why should I respect them when they practically spit on the comics they're supposedly adapting?

Because they are writing, directing, or producing the films. Not you. That's why. I don't think we have that much of a choice in that matter and why they keep a lot of these projects a secret - only leaking out what they want you to hear about it.

I do respect film makers who actually do respect the comics they're adapting and do a good job with it. They've actually earned it.

Well that's nice, but I don't think that's going to ruin the career of a writer or a film producer. A lot of these guys are still in the business even after making flops.



They can still do this with adaptions.

This is still not faithful (firmly adhering to the source material) in the sense of the word. If it were it would be an exact translation onto film.


It comes down to whether the right people are hired for the job and they understand and respect what they're adapting.

Not necessarily true. They have to know what they are doing and they have to produce something that people like to see. "Daredevil" followed the source material pretty closely but didn't do that well at the box office. This is another proof that sticking to the source material is not the be all and end all to success in a film.

Storylines and characters can still be changed and still good while respecting a property.

That's what I have been trying to say. This is not respecting the source material because it has changed/deviated from it.

That's not source material.

The real source material is the comics. There is no such thing as "other source material". Either it's the source or it isn't.

It would be the same if they adapted a video-game. That video-game would be the source material no matter how many comics, tv show,cartoons, novels or movies were made of it. That never changes.

That's not the Matrix source material. That's why its title is "Ghost in a Shell" not "The Matrix".

They were heavily inspired by the anime but that doesn't mean it has any direct link to the source material. Both are seperate franchises, and the source material to that anime is the manga by Masamune Shirow.

The first time Matrix appeared in any form was in the first movie

Anything that is used as a basis for a film is considered source material. That could be a comic book, another film, a video game, a novel, et. al. "The Matrix" used the animated film/TV series "Ghost in the Shell", which was based on a Japanese Manga, as a basis to make the film (and hence is considered source material). If you looked at the clip that I posed you would have even seen the producers admitting the basis and similarities to both. There were even scenes where there were direct parallels to those in the anime. Source material is not just comic books.

What things did B & R have in common with the comics? What issues? What storylines?

The era which had the "friendly" Batman in comics don't count. Those comics were directly influenced by the TV show. Thank god that ended.

It had Batman, Robin, Batgirl, Alfred, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Bane, and a lot of other characters that were in the comic books. Even though Bane was not a character during that period, the film was based on the campy Batman comics and TV show of the 1960's. Before you knock this, the campy Batman & Robin on television basically reinvigorated the franchise during that period and is still considered source material.

Of course they were.

This was Bane's introduction to the public. Instead of making him an interesting, intelligent threat who was worthy of Batman's time like in the comics they made him a boring Hulk rip-off.

I think the character was an after thought and not necessarily intended to be the main character in the film (that was quite obvious). He might have been placed in there to satisfy fans who wanted to see him make an appearance. Bane is a villain who is pumped up on steroids. I wouldn't call him a Hulk rip-off, but rather more of villain's take on Captain America.

They changed everything about her, not just her origin.

Made her much less interesting, too.

They do that in the comics as well. This is part of adaptation and you call it. You can't have it both ways.

Doesn't mean they don't have talent. If they didn't they'd have no hits at all.

As far as I'm concerned, they got lucky with "The Matrix" and was able to turn it into 3 films. The rest of their productions were not so impressive box office wise. There are a lot of other writers and directors that are much better.

[Evil Twin]

Adaptation, from one medium of storytelling and style, from serial to episodic, to another calls for changes. Condensing years of history, often conflicting, into a two hour movie often calls for that. Sin City didn't even work all the time and that was partly inspired by film noir in the first place.

People only complain about adaptation when they don't like the final product. The Dini/Timm Batman animated series did plenty of adapting and changing. Mr. Freeze and the Mad Hatter probably most notably.

[Kevin Smith]

Totally!!! :up: That's what I've been saying!

That is exactly it. :up:



There is so much potential for Justice League movie villains.



Absolutely! And don't cast predominantly younger actors like Smallville, who George Miller hopes would "grow into their roles someday." I want the Justice League, grown up men and women, not Peter Parker's, or "cool" inexperienced stupid collage age brats. The adult Justice League, not Superboy, Batboy and Wonder Girl, not Teen Titans or Smallville: The Movie!
This:
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/4214/rossjla1ub0.jpg
Not more of this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/Smallville_justice.jpg



Haha! DAMN RIGHT!! My thoughts exactly, the JLA are, ahem, "grown ups", like I said, this ain't X-Men or Smallville.




Danny Elfman! He would give Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman their own individual scores.

I'd be cool with that, Elfman is great, I love his Batman theme. IMO, no matter who scores JLA, they should use the Williams Superman score and Elfman Batman score for Superman and Batman's leitmotiffs in the film.



Right. New Frontier is great, now give us a live-action Justice League movie, and please take it seriously.



Good idea. Just Justice League, or simply, Justice.

[The Major]

Because they are writing, directing, or producing the films. Not you. That's why.

That doesn’t entitle them to respect. It doesn’t mean they deserve anything.

The second they release their movies to the public they open themselves up to critism.

They definitely don’t have the right to have contempt for a medium or the properties they’re adapting when they don’t even understand what they’re talking about.

I don't think we have that much of a choice in that matter and why they keep a lot of these projects a secret - only leaking out what they want you to hear about it.

What you talking about here? I never said fans should get all the details on the movies are being made.

Well that's nice, but I don't think that's going to ruin the career of a writer or a film producer.

Who’s talking about ruining a career?

I'm just saying a person doesn't deserve respect just because he was on a film.

A lot of these guys are still in the business even after making flops.

True.

This is still not faithful (firmly adhering to the source material) in the sense of the word. If it were it would be an exact translation onto film.

There can still be changes and still remain faithful to the source. It doesn’t have to be 100% to do it but it does have to be recognizable, respectful and logical. This is not impossible to accomplish in a movie adaption.

Not necessarily true. They have to know what they are doing

They may know how to make movies but they still don’t know **** about comics. When they’re making a comic adaption actually knowing about that subject matter interferes with their film making abilities. Some film makers are able to do both, but most can’t deal with that balance at all. That’s how we get stuff like Catwoman.


and they have to produce something that people like to see.

How can they know what people want to see from a comic adaption when they barely know the basics of it themselves?

That’s if they actually know a franchise exists.

"Daredevil" followed the source material pretty closely but didn't do that well at the box office.
This is another proof that sticking to the source material is not the be all and end all to success in a film.

It isn’t that simple. Some concepts are easier to adapt then others. It depends on the marketing, whether the film makers are suited to the project, what competition it’s up against when released in theatres, whether the public are in the mood for a movie like it, how wide the distribution is, the concept itself and whether the film is actually good.

There have been successful faithful adaptions, too.

That's what I have been trying to say. This is not respecting the source material because it has changed/deviated from it.

When the changes actually are logical which make the film better and respect the franchise its adapting it’s good but changes for the sake of change with no rationality only hurts the movie.

Anything that is used as a basis for a film is considered source material.

That could be a comic book, another film, a video game, a novel, et. Al.


It must be term which means different thing to the comic community then.


That "The Matrix" used the animated film/TV series "Ghost in the Shell", which was based on a Japanese Manga, as a basis to make the film (and hence is considered source material).

Have you watched the anime or read the manga? Ghost has little in common with The Matrix.

If you looked at the clip that I posed you would have even seen the producers admitting the basis and similarities to both. There were even scenes where there were direct parallels to those in the anime.

Many creative properties have similarities and parallels to other properties. This isn’t new.

Nor does it make it source material. The source is the actual material itself not the bits ripped off from other properties.

Source material is not just comic books.

No, but it can be.

It had Batman, Robin, Batgirl, Alfred, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Bane, and a lot of other characters that were in the comic books.

Video-games, novels, tv shows and cartoons have done that, too.

Doesn’t make any of them source material.

Even though Bane was not a character during that period, the film was based on the campy Batman comics and TV show of the 1960's.

I know.

Before you knock this, the campy Batman & Robin on television basically reinvigorated the franchise during that period

It may have reinvigorated the franchise it doesn’t mean it deserves respect. It distorted the entire franchise into a parody of itself that only had surface elements connecting it to Batman which gave an entirely different tone that's the exact opposite of how its supposed to be.

It wasn’t until Burton’s film that the public was reminded what Batman’s supposed to act like or at least close to being what it’s supposed to do.

and is still considered source material.

By people who are fans of the show who don’t know any better.

I think the character was an after thought and not necessarily intended to be the main character in the film (that was quite obvious).

A character doesn’t need to be the star of a movie to be interesting.

He might have been placed in there to satisfy fans who wanted to see him make an appearance.

Bane is far from being one of the most popular Batman rogues.

Bane is a villain who is pumped up on steroids.

Yes, only that’s not the only interesting thing about him.

I wouldn't call him a Hulk rip-off,

Bane was pure muscle with no personality who just hit people. He even said “Bane smash” in the movie. That’s very blatant who they were copying.

He definitely didn’t act like Bane from the comics.

but rather more of villain's take on Captain America.

Done correctly he is. They didn’t do this in that movie.

They do that in the comics as well. This is part of adaptation and you call it. You can't have it both ways.

The comics are the source medium. It’s true contintuity does evolve to fit with the times
it still doesn’t change the fact that it is the primary source.


As far as I'm concerned, they got lucky with "The Matrix" and was able to turn it into 3 films.

Okay.

The rest of their productions were not so impressive box office wise.


Having a movie which doesn’t do well at the box office doesn’t always mean the movie is bad or the film makers were untalented. IIRC Blade Runner bombed in theatres.

There are a lot of other writers and directors that are much better.

Agreed.

[Showtime]

I'd actually email it to WB if I had some contact info, lol. But in the mean time, because of the positive reactions this post has recieved (thanks to you guys :D), I'm considering posting this at a couple other sites I'm a member at (does that count as spamming???).


Who would you like to contact? :cwink:

[dnno1]

That doesn’t entitle them to respect. It doesn’t mean they deserve anything.

You don't understand. You have to respect things you do not have control over. That is a natural law. It's like smashing your fist against the wall. You will break your hand every time so you have to respect the strength of the wall. The same thing goes with the people in control of making films. You can't influence them unless they want you to, so you have to respect that. It is not a matter of entitlement.

The second they release their movies to the public they open themselves up to [criticism].

It didn't stop them from making the film in the first. They are aware of the critics and they have their counters. Yes a good number of films that are made do get a lot of criticism, but this doesn't stop them from doing what they do.

They definitely don’t have the right to have contempt for a medium or the properties they’re adapting when they don’t even understand what they’re talking about.

Sure they do -- just as much as you. Back to source material, there are a lot of different avenues based on the nature of the source that a writer/director could take to make his film work. He/she might have an affinity towards a certain style or direction from certain sources and then choose to go that route. Case in point Christopher Nolan's Batman chooses a more realistic take on the character rather than the campy take from the 1960's. You can tell he does not like that style nor does he like that of Tim Burton and has taken his direction. Of course there are other examples and I hope you get the idea.

What you talking about here? I never said fans should get all the details on the movies are being made.

I was responding to your question about why we have to respect the producers. My alluding to the fact that they keep many of their projects secret from the public was just an example of the power they really have, which we should respect.

Who’s talking about ruining a career?

I think you are when you say you will only reward those who have earned your respect with just that. I don't think that matters that much to them else they would be on their knees begging for it -- and I don't see that happening.

I'm just saying a person doesn't deserve respect just because he was on a film.

And I am saying that you have to respect him and his creative rights since the project is in his hands to do what he wishes with it. We can't control that so we have to respect it (just like the weather).

There can still be changes and still remain faithful to the source. It doesn’t have to be 100% to do it but it does have to be recognizable, respectful and logical. This is not impossible to accomplish in a movie adaption.


Yes, that is a possibility, but it is not a necessary nor sufficient condition for a successful film. What it really boils down to is that it has to be entertaining and have things the people either like about a particular character or like to see in a film. "Ghost Busters" had no source material at all, but yet it was a hit when it was released. It basically had elements (like comedy, a little drama, science fiction, and surprisingly some action. So, you don't really need to remain faithful to the source material. What you do have to do is be consistent once you have established the alignment of the charted for the film and staying consistent with that.

They may know how to make movies but they still don’t know **** about comics. When they’re making a comic adaption actually knowing about that subject matter interferes with their film making abilities. Some film makers are able to do both, but most can’t deal with that balance at all. That’s how we get stuff like Catwoman.

I wouldn't say that they didn't know anything about the character. It sure seemed like they did when they made the documentary on the home video. They actually knew quite a bit about the history of the character and the fact that there was a black Catwoman (in the TV series). I think what they wanted to establish was that this was their version of Catwoman: someone who was misunderstood and not necessarily a criminal (like the one in the comics). This has been done many times before (I can recall there were several versions of the Jekyl and Hyde story and Robin Hood as well), and it is very sad that not many appreciated what they were trying to do.

How can they know what people want to see from a comic adaption when they barely know the basics of it themselves?
That’s if they actually know a franchise exists.

Oh I am sure they know a lot more about it than you think. Remember a lot of these guys have college degrees in film making. Part of that education teaches them how to research subject matter and get to know about it so that you can produce something that is believable. More than that you have to be able to produce something that is likeable by a consensus of people. It is not that easy and a lot of films do not succeede, but it is not necessarily because it is crap. Other factors like budget, marketing, the economic environment, and your competition during your release period all factor in to the success equation. It is not very easy at all.

It isn’t that simple. Some concepts are easier to adapt then others. It depends on the marketing, whether the film makers are suited to the project, what competition it’s up against when released in theatres, whether the public are in the mood for a movie like it, how wide the distribution is, the concept itself and whether the film is actually good.

That's what I was trying to say above. Staying faithful or respecting the source material is no guarantee of success.

There have been successful faithful [adaptations], too.

Like I said before, being faithful is not a necessary condition.

When the changes actually are logical which make the film better and respect the franchise its adapting it’s good but changes for the sake of change with no rationality only hurts the movie.

That's all relative. What someone deems as logical could be illogical to others. That all depends on the cultural values of the particular demographic that is perceiving it. Entertainers try to anticipate this and incorporate this into a picture to maximize attendance, but it doesn't always work. "Batman Begins" for example was an attempt to make a darker portrayal of the character but it dissuaded a lot of parents from brining their kids to see the film (a market that is/was heavily targeted by the Batman franchise). Sure, adult hard core Batman fans loved it, but the film did not make "Batman" (1989) numbers.


It must be term which means different thing to the comic community then.

I don't think so. Source material is a common phrase and concept that is used in both film and literature. Here is a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_animated_feature_film_source_material) of sources that Disney has used for its films for example. I hope this enlightens you some what.

Have you watched the anime or read the manga? Ghost has little in common with The Matrix.

I think I just showed you a clip where the producer, Joel Silver, and the Directors, the Wachowski brothers, basically admitted that they based scenes in the film off "Ghost in the Shell" and showed the exact scenes where the films were similar a few posts back. They used that as source material. I guess you didn't bother to watch the video.

Many creative properties have similarities and parallels to other properties. This isn’t new.

And in a lot of cases one or the other was used as a source.

Nor does it make it source material. The source is the actual material itself not the bits ripped off from other properties.

Even if it was just a bit of it, if it came from somewhere else, that somewhere else was a source. It's not original there is no getting around it.

No, but it can be.

We are not necessarily arguing about that (comic books being the source). The argument is that it is not just only comics that are used as source material for a (comic book) film. Joss Whedon was going to use the film "Splash" as source material for his Wonder Woman film. He is on record as stating as such. Stan Lee has admitted that his Hulk character was basically a cross between Frankenstein's monster and Dr. Jekly and Mr. Hyde. The Green Latern and Corps of the silver and modern age are based off the Lensman series. It is not necessary to base your story off the comics.

Video-games, novels, tv shows and cartoons have done that, too.

Doesn’t make any of them source material.

Yes it does, because it was based from that.

It may have reinvigorated the franchise it doesn’t mean it deserves respect. It distorted the entire franchise into a parody of itself that only had surface elements connecting it to Batman which gave an entirely different tone that's the exact opposite of how its supposed to be. It wasn’t until Burton’s film that the public was reminded what Batman’s supposed to act like or at least close to being what it’s supposed to do.

That TV series (and Superman) was what got me and others into comic books. I guess you would have had to been living in that time period to understand it. The dark Batman that emerged in the 1970's and got progressively darker from there was virtually non existent before then.


By people who are fans of the show who don’t know any better.

If it is used in a film or any form of media as a basis for a story line, article, treatise, or dissertation, it is by definition considered source material. You basically got it from somewhere else (other than your creative mind) and that somewhere else is your source.

A character doesn’t need to be the star of a movie to be interesting. Bane is far from being one of the most popular Batman rogues. Yes, only that’s not the only interesting thing about him. [The] Bane [in "Batman and Robin"] was pure muscle with no personality who just hit people. He even said “Bane smash” in the movie. That’s very blatant who they were copying. He definitely didn’t act like Bane from the comics.

It is obvious that the writer/director of the film did not want the character to stand out. They wanted to feature Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy which are two of Batman's more classical villains. At the time of the release of the film, Bane was a relatively new villain (only 4 years old by the release of "Batman and Robin") whereas Ivy and Freeze were about 31 and 38 years old by comparison. It wasn't about who was more popular here because the Bane character was too young to be that. More of the audience knew about Freeze and Ivy because they had been around longer (and were hence more of a draw). The appearance of Bane was enough to fill a few seats by those comic fans who were interested.

Done correctly he is. They didn’t do this in that movie.

:huh:

http://www.fxsupply.com/features/penikas/images/B-4.JPEG
Bane
(from "Batman and Robin")

From what I remember, they shot him up with steroids while he was lying on a table. He was even scrawny before he got pumped up, just like Cap was. I think the only disappointment was that he was not a big crime boss that ran Gotham like he was in the early 1990's, but that would have taken away from the other (more popular) villains. The film was more about them than about Bane and he was only in the film to get a few more seats filled.

Having a movie which doesn’t do well at the box office doesn’t always mean the movie is bad or the film makers were untalented. IIRC Blade Runner bombed in theatres.

But that's the way you treat these films. I don't believe what you just said.

[Lestat74]

Well, I'm gonna go ahead and pretend that someone at the WB is actually reading this. Here goes:

First off, DO NOT put this movie out before 2012. It does not need to beat Avengers into theaters. There is no need to rush this. Let Chris Nolan and Christian Bale finish their Bat Trilogy, and let there be at least one more solo Superman Film. Let Green Lantern get his solo movie, as well as Wonder Woman. I think a Flash film would be great as well, but not as vital, and I'll explain why in a minute.

Apparently, the script for Justice League was SO great, they were ready to shoot it with very little revision. And despite what anyone might say, the original script did play off of the events of Batman Begins, with Talia getting revenge for the death of her father in that movie. I think that's a cool idea, and should not be dropped. So let's day Nolan finishes his Bat Trilogy, and Bale decided he doesn't want to do a JLA movie. OK, fine. But whoever they get to replace him could still play his version of Batman, more or less. It could still be in continuity with the recent Batman flicks. For purists who don't want the Nolan-verse to have any thing to do with JLA, well...those movies won't ever mention them. Take a cue from the comics here; how often do the grittier Batman titles like Detective and Batman ever mention his adventures with the JLA? Almost never. But it's the same character. The JLA movie should take the same approach, even if Batman ends up being recast.

Wonder Woman and Green Lantern have very complicated mythologies. I think it would be very hard to introduce Wonder Woman in a JLA movie without shortchanging her origins, which unlike the other members of the Big 7, is magic based. And GL has an almost equally complicated mythology with the Corps and the Guardians and all that. It would be shortchanged in a JLA movie. That's why I really believe they need their own movies first. Now Flash...I would LIKE him to have his own movie, but I believe he is one of those characters who can be explained in a few sentences ( I got hit by lightning and got splashed with chemicals...now I can run fast and fight crime. The End ) If he proves popular, then sure, he should be spun off. Now Aquaman and J'onn don't have a prayer of ever getting their own movies, so weave their origins into the fabric of the JLA movie and it could work, similar to how J'onn's origins were handled in The New Frontier DVD. In fact, that whole movie is a great template for how to do a JLA origin without doing solo flicks for everyone first, if you really had to.

Anyway, WB should NOT rush this. Do it right, and everyone will be thankful.

[Batteen87]

I think most people would agree that the filmmakers don't have to be 100% faithful to the comics. What we really want is the creative team to take the characters seriously, and stay true to the core of the characters. Batman Begins is a great example of this, Christopher Nolan incorporated important elements from the comics but used them to tell his story. We don't want camp and we don't want cheese, and most of all we want it to be a good movie.

[dnno1]

Now that's a better reason.

[Kevin Smith]

Who would you like to contact? :cwink:

Seriously? :grin:

[ZIPBAGS]

Kevin...Your a famous director. You do the movie. Ok..Ok...Someone had to say it.


Seriously. Kevin your OP was spot on. And to whomever said having Alex Ross do some origin panels during the opening credits is something I had thought of also.

Only one thing I disagree with. Christian Bale HAS to play Batman. Even if you have to give him top billing and $$$$. And I would have Tom Welling portray Supes. Just to bring the Smallville fans in.

[ZIPBAGS]

I'd hire alex ross and show each heroes origin in comic panels in the opening credits.
You could also have a smattering of their origins in flashback scenes scattered throughout the film..


Actually, didn't Alex Ross do some pics like this already for some books??

[ZIPBAGS]

Sorry..Couldn't resist.....

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/2936/jlaib2.jpg

[Dark Knight]

Bravo....someone else gets what a JL film should be about!

However, IMO....it would be far better for WB's to do MOS in 2010 and have the MOS story have a surprise type ending which will be a lead in to the eventual JL film that can be released in 2012. (I don't believe that WB's/DC need to worry about beating Marvel and the Avengers film to the punch. Chances are they will have Nolans 3rd Bat film to complete his trilogy and cement his legacy in Batman movie lore in 2011.)

Doing that will create a HUGE buzz for MOS AND the JL film IMO. I also believe it is VERY IMPORTANT to make sure to get Routh and Bale in the film as Supes and Bats respectively. Casting two complete unknowns or even going with say Welling and say for example Jim Caviezal would be a silly move. The GP and comic fans will be thinking before watching the film and during the film and wonder the whole freakin time about "Why the hell didn't they get Routh and Bale?" Not a good thing. To me, Bales Batman doesn't need to have a huge role in the film....he can have a minor yet important role and be in the backround. It can be done....having an attitude like...."well Bales Batman wouldn't fit in the JLA universe" and all that is non-sense and just an excuse to not have Bale be involved.

My suggestions to roundout the JL cast along with Routh and Bale can be achieved, for example....

The Flash(Wally West)- a toned up Ryan Gosling.

Wonder Woman- a toned up and tanned up Jennifer Connelly would be my top choice, with Megan Gale and Jessica Biel being acceptable to me at least.

Green Lantern- if they go with John Stewart, then Chiwetel Ejiofor is my pick, if they go with Hal Jordan...Jim Caviezel or Nathan Fillion

Martian Manhunter- Dennis Haysbert all the way!

Aquaman/Arthur- this casting will be critical IMO and they need someone who can be noble and have leadership qualities, but have that cynical side to him of the land dwellers. I honestly think Matthew McConoughey would be a good Aquaman.

[Dark Knight]

Kevin, (if this is the real Kevin Smith)

You should honestly write the story and or script treatment and see if WB's likes it better than the half a$$ rush job that the Mulroneys are trying to get produced.

Your due Kevin....

[jmc]

Bravo....someone else gets what a JL film should be about!

However, IMO....it would be far better for WB's to do MOS in 2010 and have the MOS story have a surprise type ending which will be a lead in to the eventual JL film that can be released in 2012. (I don't believe that WB's/DC need to worry about beating Marvel and the Avengers film to the punch. Chances are they will have Nolans 3rd Bat film to complete his trilogy and cement his legacy in Batman movie lore in 2011.)

Doing that will create a HUGE buzz for MOS AND the JL film IMO. I also believe it is VERY IMPORTANT to make sure to get Routh and Bale in the film as Supes and Bats respectively. Casting two complete unknowns or even going with say Welling and say for example Jim Caviezal would be a silly move. The GP and comic fans will be thinking before watching the film and during the film and wonder the whole freakin time about "Why the hell didn't they get Routh and Bale?" Not a good thing. To me, Bales Batman doesn't need to have a huge role in the film....he can have a minor yet important role and be in the backround. It can be done....having an attitude like...."well Bales Batman wouldn't fit in the JLA universe" and all that is non-sense and just an excuse to not have Bale be involved.


Then please explain as to how you put Nolan's Batman in a with a bunch of Super powered beings. I'm curious as to how you fit in a character who's director has just spent the last two films trying to emphasize that this is an attempt to bring a sense of realness to the series. Do we just ignore the events of the last two films, wink at the audience and say 'Just go with it'? How do you do this without it coming across as forced?

[dnno1]

The same way it was done in the comics. Superman could always fly in the movies, but it wasn't until "Superman the Movie" that they gave flying a sense of realness. Come to think of it, Nolan's Batman flies. My point is that realness is just a perception which can be changed to suit the needs of a story or film.

[ClarkLuther55]

I agree with a lot of things in the original post, like epic length, a terrific soundtrack, a worthy villain, and a roster of nothing but A-list heroes played by well-cast actors. But there are also several things that I disagree with.

And while I'd love to see individual films first leading up into a big ensemble JLA film, it isn't gonna happen.

Individual movies are both easier and cheaper to make, while being lower risk. If a Flash movie disappoints, you've still got Wonder Woman and Green Lantern. If Justice League disappoints, then DC will have lost ALL of its top superheroes as bankable movie franchises.

Marvel's current direction is a direct rebuttal to the idea that individual movies leading up to a team film can't happen.

A JLA film is the best chance we've got at seeing of DC's finest on screen. If WB/DC had been smarter a few years ago when they started to recycle the Batman and Superman film franchises, they could've set the two respective films up in the same universe, establishing a DC film U, but they didn't, so there is no way that we'll be seeing individual films that lead into JLA first, and we especially won't be seeing Singer's Superman and Nolan's Batman in an ensemble movie together.

There is nothing in either Batman Begins or Superman Returns that explicitly says that they aren't in the same continuity. They may not reference each other, but the same holds true for the comic book series they use as source material. You can read many issues of Batman comics without seeing Superman being mentioned.

Christian Bale has said that he would be willing to work with Brandon Routh, and Routh will take any movie role you give him since he's not getting anything else.

2010 IS THE ONLY CHANCE

Look, Marvel has the Avengers scheduled for release in 2011, which, I don't know if you've noticed, is gonna be HUGE. If DC wants to beat Marvel to the punch with a big superhero team movie, a JLA film HAS to be put out BEFORE the Avengers. If not, Marvel will have out done DC in just about every way possible on screen and a JLA movie will seem second best, like a Johnny-come-lately after the Avengers comes out.

Marvel has already outdone and humiliated DC at the movies. DC should try to catch up by making GOOD movies that people want to see. They won't be helping themselves by rushing a JLA movie into production just out of an egotistical desire to get their big team movie out first.

If Avengers come out first, then fine. Make JLA later, and make it BETTER. Top the Avengers, go further than it did, and make it even cooler.

I say get this thing into production and let's get it out there, dammit, before people get sick of these movies!

People won't get sick of these movies if they're original and good.

NO ORIGIN, PLEASE

There's no need to have Justice League be an origin film. I just don't see the reason. They're 7 superheroes, there doesn't have to be an elaborate explanation for why they team exists. If individual characters' origins are mentioned or explained briefly, that's fine, but there's no need for this to be a long winded origin film, IMO.

The most successful superhero movies have been origin movies. X-Men is the exception, but the comics didn't start with their origin either (because they were introduced as mutants who were born with their powers, and were already with Xavier for a while).

You can't overestimate the audience's knowledge or care for these characters. The fact is that the average moviegoer knows NOTHING about most of them. To truly grab an audience you should pull them onboard from the beginning, so that they don't feel confused or left out. They need to know who the JLA members are, so that they don't just come across as members of the team.

People know Superman and Batman's stories. They know jack about WW, GL, Flash, etc. And even with Superman, Singer's decision to go with an established continuity rather than starting from the beginning was considered a huge mistake. Imagine that you're a very young kid. Even the Bruce Timm Superman cartoon in the 90s was before your time. Superman Returns is your first exposure to the character...and it starts with a freaking block of text and makes reference to events you've never seen. WTF is that? I'm betting that alienated a bunch of kids right there.

DON'T LISTEN TO THE HATERS

I'm talking about the ungrateful nits who say they don't ever want a JLA film (but will go see it opening day heheh). The people who are constantly prophecying "doom and gloom" for a JLA film, a film of which they actually know very, very little about.

The people who opposed the JLA movie aren't "haters" or "ungrateful nits." They're fans who care about the characters and want what's best for them. There was a lot of "doom and gloom" predictions, but people DID have things to go on. The horrid cast of miscast young actors and even NON-actors was not a secret.

The more success and exposure these characters have, the better, it keeps them household names (in a good way), makes more money for DC/WB, and is a win/win scenario for we, the fans, who get to see more of our respective heroes.

On the other hand, BAD exposure hurts everyone. There will never be another Fantastic Four movie with Jessica Alba and Tim Story. That's because the first two movies sucked and turned people away. Unfortunately, a real Fantastic Four movie worthy of the name is now that much harder to make.

Likewise, there will not be anymore Blade, Catwoman, or Elektra movies. Hulk got an unexpected reboot, but even five years later the shadows of Ang Lee's crap was still hanging over it. As a result the hype was lower, and the box office has been mediocre even though most people agree that the new movie is an improvement from the 2003 Ange Lee film.

[ClarkLuther55]

You don't understand. You have to respect things you do not have control over. That is a natural law. It's like smashing your fist against the wall. You will break your hand every time so you have to respect the strength of the wall. The same thing goes with the people in control of making films. You can't influence them unless they want you to, so you have to respect that. It is not a matter of entitlement.

You as an individual have no control over the government...respect the government even if it screws the country over. You don't have control over some piece of crap guy you see on the news, respect him.:whatever:

There are very obvious reasons not to punch a wall. You can't say the same thing about not giving respect to some filmmaker who may be totally screwing up a movie and disrespecting the comic.

[Webhead2006]

alot of good points in all your posts today. Yea solo films is the last risky movie cause if it false they can try and do a team up later to fix the mistake. But if a jla film now and fails it pretty much kills all solo films from ever being taken seriously and get off the ground like all the problems the solo films have currently with even getting past the script stages and all that. But as i said many of times really if we want superman to be in jla and play a big part we need to have jla happen within 2010-2012 release date because if they lose superman in 2013 we cant see superman in jla which would suck alot for most people. And we would lose alot of audience pull with not being able to have the trinity characters in the films.

[theMan-Bat]

Kevin...Your a famous director. You do the movie. Ok..Ok...Someone had to say it.

:up:

Seriously. Kevin your OP was spot on. And to whomever said having Alex Ross do some origin panels during the opening credits is something I had thought of also.

:up:

Only one thing I disagree with. Christian Bale HAS to play Batman. Even if you have to give him top billing and $$$$.

Bale made it clear that he will only play Batman for Christopher Nolan.

And I would have Tom Welling portray Supes. Just to bring the Smallville fans in.

Tom Welling said he will never wear the tights because he thinks it's "lame" and he wants to have the freedom to pursue a career after Smallville where people don't typecast him and will not be able to see him as anything other than Superman. And if Tom Welling is Superman than Smallville's Aquaman Justin Hartley should be Aquaman too and it will become Smallville: The Movie. We already have Smallville. As the Justice League comics and animation depict, the Justice League are older people. Welling is fine to play an adolescent Clark Kent, but bad for a grown-up Superman. Welling looks too young. Superman is supposed to come off like the strongest guy in the galaxy. In the context of Justice League, he has to be believable as the most powerful when standing next to the others. Welling and Routh do not project that. I see angsty young guy, not powerful Superman. Separate the men from the boys. Welling makes a fine barely post-adolescent, baby-faced, confused, awkward, clumsy, dorky-nerdy, silly, unassertive, made for TV tepid farm boy Clark Kent - not the confident strong mature persona and features required for Superman.

[watchmen623]

That dude is 100% charisma free*! After that show sputters to it's slow death photo finish he's headed straight back to male modeling.


*but at least he's dreamy.

[Superark]

Welling is already typecast. I dont think he'll get out of the smallville shadow

[Kevin Smith]

Bravo....someone else gets what a JL film should be about!

:woot:

However, IMO....it would be far better for WB's to do MOS in 2010 and have the MOS story have a surprise type ending which will be a lead in to the eventual JL film that can be released in 2012. (I don't believe that WB's/DC need to worry about beating Marvel and the Avengers film to the punch. Chances are they will have Nolans 3rd Bat film to complete his trilogy and cement his legacy in Batman movie lore in 2011.)

Doing that will create a HUGE buzz for MOS AND the JL film IMO. I also believe it is VERY IMPORTANT to make sure to get Routh and Bale in the film as Supes and Bats respectively. Casting two complete unknowns or even going with say Welling and say for example Jim Caviezal would be a silly move. The GP and comic fans will be thinking before watching the film and during the film and wonder the whole freakin time about "Why the hell didn't they get Routh and Bale?" Not a good thing. To me, Bales Batman doesn't need to have a huge role in the film....he can have a minor yet important role and be in the backround. It can be done....having an attitude like...."well Bales Batman wouldn't fit in the JLA universe" and all that is non-sense and just an excuse to not have Bale be involved.

Batman should have a major part no matter who plays him. He's a VERY important part to the JLA. Ya can't downplay him. Again. I'd love to see Routh and Bale, but I'd bet my ass it won't happen.

My suggestions to roundout the JL cast along with Routh and Bale can be achieved, for example....

The Flash(Wally West)- a toned up Ryan Gosling.

Ryan Gosling would be good as Flash, but he'd have to get in shape. He seems kinda pudgy. If he got in shape, he would be a great Barry Allen, he even alreay has the blonde hair and blue eyes. :D (anyone else think he looks a little bit like Christian Bale sometimes?)

Wonder Woman- a toned up and tanned up Jennifer Connelly would be my top choice, with Megan Gale and Jessica Biel being acceptable to me at least.

heh. To each his own. :D

Green Lantern- if they go with John Stewart, then Chiwetel Ejiofor is my pick, if they go with Hal Jordan...Jim Caviezel or Nathan Fillion

Martian Manhunter- Dennis Haysbert all the way!

Aquaman/Arthur- this casting will be critical IMO and they need someone who can be noble and have leadership qualities, but have that cynical side to him of the land dwellers. I honestly think Matthew McConoughey would be a good Aquaman.


:down down to McConoughey, man. Casting him would ensure that Aquaman would be played as a joke. I don't think the man can do "serious" for the life of me.

[Kevin Smith]

Kevin, (if this is the real Kevin Smith)

You should honestly write the story and or script treatment and see if WB's likes it better than the half a$$ rush job that the Mulroneys are trying to get produced.

Your due Kevin....

LOL. :word:

[Kevin Smith]

I agree with a lot of things in the original post, like epic length, a terrific soundtrack, a worthy villain, and a roster of nothing but A-list heroes played by well-cast actors. But there are also several things that I disagree with.



Individual movies are both easier and cheaper to make, while being lower risk. If a Flash movie disappoints, you've still got Wonder Woman and Green Lantern. If Justice League disappoints, then DC will have lost ALL of its top superheroes as bankable movie franchises.

I see your point, and a great one it is, but consider the cost of 5 indivudual films (Flash, GL, WW, Bats, Supes), and then the cost to get the cast from the indivudual films, coming up with a story that doesn't conflict with the indiviual films (let's say the WW film is a WW2 period piece, GL is an origin, and Flash is set in the future, how do you come up with a story that incorporates all of this?), it's just a LOT to do, and seeing how WB isn't anywhere close to doing individual films, a JLA film seems like the most reasonable option. However, ideally, I'd love to see individual films first, it just seems very unlikely to me, so in my post I tried to come up with a reasonable way to do JLA a way that's feasible for WB and establishes things that we, the fans want in the film.

Marvel's current direction is a direct rebuttal to the idea that individual movies leading up to a team film can't happen.

That is true, but WB/DC and Marvel are starting at opposite ends. Marvel, from the very start, set their films up in the same Universe. DC/WB did not, they did a young Superman who had been Superman for at least 6 years (in story), left earth and returned, and a Batman, who's comparatively older than Singer's Superman, who just began his career as Batman, in realities that kind of contradict each other. Had WB/DC been smarter and started the 2 in the same universe so that they would be compatible, it would be very convenient to have the to converge and do a teamup film, but because they didn't do it like that, it isn't convenient, and I doubt we'll see it done that way.


There is nothing in either Batman Begins or Superman Returns that explicitly says that they aren't in the same continuity. They may not reference each other, but the same holds true for the comic book series they use as source material. You can read many issues of Batman comics without seeing Superman being mentioned.

Again, that is true, there isn't anything specific, but if they are supposed to be occurring at the same time and you look at some of what the reality is in those universe which I pointed out in my previous paragraph ^, it's rather conflictive and, IMO, would not work.

Christian Bale has said that he would be willing to work with Brandon Routh, and Routh will take any movie role you give him since he's not getting anything else.

LOL. That's true, and they at least have them if they wanted to do JLA that way, but again, it just doesn't seem feasible to me.



Marvel has already outdone and humiliated DC at the movies. DC should try to catch up by making GOOD movies that people want to see. They won't be helping themselves by rushing a JLA movie into production just out of an egotistical desire to get their big team movie out first.

I agree, they have already outdone DC at the movies, but they will be one step even FURTHER than DC if they get Avengers out first. Now if JLA is rushed and will suck because of that, it's fine with me if we don't see it for the next 20 years. But if they work carefully, and ar able to get it out by 2010 or even 2011, I say GO. RIGHT. AHEAD. The sooner the better, and so much the more if it's being done right. So ideally, I'd like to see JLA out by 2010, but nit at the risk of the film's quality.

If Avengers come out first, then fine. Make JLA later, and make it BETTER. Top the Avengers, go further than it did, and make it even cooler.

My thoughts exactly.



People won't get sick of these movies if they're original and good.

Some people are already complaing that there are too many comic films, but the naysayers also admit that they are very good films. So you may have a point there. ;)



The most successful superhero movies have been origin movies. X-Men is the exception, but the comics didn't start with their origin either (because they were introduced as mutants who were born with their powers, and were already with Xavier for a while).

That is true, but JLA, like X-Men, IMO, does not need an origin story. Nothing that can't be covered in a few verbal references or flashbacks. They don't need to do an origin to tell a good story. Most origins like this are always alien invasion type stories, I'm pretty certain Avengers will be doing that. Besides, if they want to do someone like Darkseid in a sequel, the audience, IMO, will start to think that the whole "alien invasion" angle is starting to get a bit repetative with the teamup movies.

You can't overestimate the audience's knowledge or care for these characters. The fact is that the average moviegoer knows NOTHING about most of them. To truly grab an audience you should pull them onboard from the beginning, so that they don't feel confused or left out. They need to know who the JLA members are, so that they don't just come across as members of the team.

While I think that can be done without doing an origin film, that is a very valid argument for why individual filsm whould be one first and that an origin should be done with JLA. Because the JLA members are more than just part of the team, as I said, they're individuals that can carry their own films, they weren't created originally to be together, when they're together the audience should be like "WHOA!", that has to be established with a JLA film and if an origin will do that better than an "as is" story or vice versa, then so be it. :)

People know Superman and Batman's stories. They know jack about WW

They have heard of her and know what she looks like, but that's it.

, GL, Flash, etc. And even with Superman, Singer's decision to go with an established continuity rather than starting from the beginning was considered a huge mistake. Imagine that you're a very young kid. Even the Bruce Timm Superman cartoon in the 90s was before your time. Superman Returns is your first exposure to the character...and it starts with a freaking block of text and makes reference to events you've never seen. WTF is that? I'm betting that alienated a bunch of kids right there.

I agree. Most young kids have no idea who Superman is. They know the costume and powers, maybe the alter ego. That's it. Some kids don't even know how Batman came to be. :/


The people who opposed the JLA movie aren't "haters" or "ungrateful nits."

There are some people who are. I'm talking about the people who don't EVER want a JLA film, they only want Batman or Superman, that's it. No teamups EVER, and they will oppose everything that would establish that. Those are the people I was talking about when I mentioned that, not the people who didn't want Miller's JLA film because of the treatment the League was getting or whatever.

They're fans who care about the characters and want what's best for them. There was a lot of "doom and gloom" predictions, but people DID have things to go on. The horrid cast of miscast young actors and even NON-actors was not a secret.



On the other hand, BAD exposure hurts everyone. There will never be another Fantastic Four movie with Jessica Alba and Tim Story. That's because the first two movies sucked and turned people away. Unfortunately, a real Fantastic Four movie worthy of the name is now that much harder to make.

Right on, sadly.

Likewise, there will not be anymore Blade, Catwoman, or Elektra movies. Hulk got an unexpected reboot, but even five years later the shadows of Ang Lee's crap was still hanging over it. As a result the hype was lower, and the box office has been mediocre even though most people agree that the new movie is an improvement from the 2003 Ange Lee film.

Again, that is true, unfortunately. All the more reason to be careful and DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.

Thanks for the post. :D

[Dark Knight]

Then please explain as to how you put Nolan's Batman in a with a bunch of Super powered beings. I'm curious as to how you fit in a character who's director has just spent the last two films trying to emphasize that this is an attempt to bring a sense of realness to the series. Do we just ignore the events of the last two films, wink at the audience and say 'Just go with it'? How do you do this without it coming across as forced?




To me this would be a good way to tie in MOS in 2010 and Nolans 3rd Bat film in hopefully 2011.

There are ways. Instead of thinking there is no way...try and find a way.

You use Bales Batman as more the detective and investigator who is doing more of the mysterious behind the scenes work in the JL film. For instance at the ending of the 3rd Nolan Bat trilogy in 2011...Gordon can say something to Batman that he heard a certain reporter from Metropolis named Clark Kent would like to interview Bruce Wayne. Bam....the the general movie audience and fans would love it! Then in the beginning of the JL film in 2012....the filmmakers can already establish from that "interview" they figured out eachothers identities and that was Supermans way to reach out to Batman for help against a "large" threat to Earth (perhaps Darkseid or the White Martians) that was insinuated at the end of MOS.

Get it?

[Dark Knight]

LOL. :word:



Seriously, your are due brotha! :hehe:

Maybe you should try and direct Goyers Green Arrow:SuperMax project?

Just make sure you use Oliver with the hood! LOL

[Dark Knight]

:woot:



Batman should have a major part no matter who plays him. He's a VERY important part to the JLA. Ya can't downplay him. Again. I'd love to see Routh and Bale, but I'd bet my ass it won't happen.



Ryan Gosling would be good as Flash, but he'd have to get in shape. He seems kinda pudgy. If he got in shape, he would be a great Barry Allen, he even alreay has the blonde hair and blue eyes. :D (anyone else think he looks a little bit like Christian Bale sometimes?)



heh. To each his own. :D




:down down to McConoughey, man. Casting him would ensure that Aquaman would be played as a joke. I don't think the man can do "serious" for the life of me.



Viggo Mortensen then! LOL

[Dark Knight]

:woot:



Batman should have a major part no matter who plays him. He's a VERY important part to the JLA. Ya can't downplay him. Again. I'd love to see Routh and Bale, but I'd bet my ass it won't happen.




I agree....but Batman doesn't need to have a crap load of major screentime IMO. He can play a major part in the story, by doing the detective investiagting work and then have a few action scenes. What I mean by minor, is that Bales Batman doesn't need to have most of the screentime.

[dnno1]

Individual movies are both easier and cheaper to make, while being lower risk. If a Flash movie disappoints, you've still got Wonder Woman and Green Lantern. If Justice League disappoints, then DC will have lost ALL of its top superheroes as bankable movie franchises.

Marvel's current direction is a direct rebuttal to the idea that individual movies leading up to a team film can't happen.
:huh:

According to the MPAA (http://mpaa.org/piracy_WhoPiracyHurts.asp), the average motion picture costs about $96 million. Let's assume we want to introduce all seven characters in a solo film before a Justice League film is done you would have spent about $687 million or more (definitely more) before hand. Then there is no guarantee that you will make your money back on all of the pictures either. Even if you just introduced 5 of the 7 you would have sank almost a half a billion dollars into it. We already have Superman and Batman franchises out there and we know what their potential is. What we don't know is the marketing potential of the remaining characters who have not had their own solo film. At least by featuring the others along with Superman and Batman in an ensemble film, you have the opportunity to test out what the audience are more receptive to and go with a spin-off film from there. This is no different that what Marvel did with the X-Men franchise and we can see the amount of risk taken with "The Incredible Hulk" when you go the other route (that wasn't cheap).

You as an individual have no control over the government...respect the government even if it screws the country over. You don't have control over some piece of crap guy you see on the news, respect him.:whatever:

There are very obvious reasons not to punch a wall. You can't say the same thing about not giving respect to some filmmaker who may be totally screwing up a movie and disrespecting the comic.

And you as an individual can not influence a writer or a director if he doesn't want you to. It is just a false sense of security to say that you don't respect him because it is not going to change anything anyway. He/She will still be a writer or director, any you will still be here on this thread complaining. Not very significant.

[ClarkLuther55]

:huh:

According to the MPAA (http://mpaa.org/piracy_WhoPiracyHurts.asp), the average motion picture costs about $96 million. Let's assume we want to introduce all seven characters in a solo film before a Justice League film is done you would have spent about $687 million or more (definitely more) before hand. Then there is no guarantee that you will make your money back on all of the pictures either.

A movie has to tank REALLY hard to not make money back. Too many people look at just the US box office while ignoring the much bigger worldwide total. Then there's DVDs.

Even if you just introduced 5 of the 7 you would have sank almost a half a billion dollars into it. We already have Superman and Batman franchises out there and we know what their potential is. What we don't know is the marketing potential of the remaining characters who have not had their own solo film.

MAKE marketing potential with a quality movie and smart advertising. Iron Man is no more popular than the the individual League members, and he just had one of the biggest superhero movies ever.

Furthermore, you have to think LONG TERM. Profits on a single movie in an intended series are not the sole measure of success. Batman Begins was not a runaway box office smash. It made $200 million, but that was considered modest relative to the recognition of the character. But what it did was create good will with audiences. Now The Dark Knight is poised to be the biggest movie of the year, and the second sequel will undoubtedly be big.

At least by featuring the others along with Superman and Batman in an ensemble film, you have the opportunity to test out what the audience are more receptive to and go with a spin-off film from there.

And if JLA disappoints or bombs, or audiences end up hating certain characters because they're played by teenyboppers or non-actors, then other superhero movies will NOT be made with DC's A-listers.

This is no different that what Marvel did with the X-Men franchise

X-Men is a team of team members, that started out as a team. The Wolverine and Magneto spinoffs are milking an established franchise; they probably never stood a chance of being made first as solo films anyway.

and we can see the amount of risk taken with "The Incredible Hulk" when you go the other route (that wasn't cheap).

The Incredible Hulk suffered from the shadow of Ang Lee's crap, a full five years after that movie. Even Batman Begins suffered from Batman and Robin, with an EIGHT year gap in between. These are examples of the danger of rushing out crappy movies that turn audiences off. All the more reason to take it slow and get it right.

And you as an individual can not influence a writer or a director if he doesn't want you to.

Fans can and have influenced the suits above them. For example Jack Black Green Lantern was killed by fan backlash, even though they had a star and a script ready.

It is just a false sense of security to say that you don't respect him because it is not going to change anything anyway. He/She will still be a writer or director, any you will still be here on this thread complaining. Not very significant.

Completely irrelevant. Even if you have no effect on things, it doesn't hurt you to express your opinion and spread word of mouth as you see fit. That actually helps your position, because it can not only affect a current movie but also the way movies are made in the future. Certainly not the same thing as smashing your fist against a wall (one of the dumbest analogies I've ever heard).:whatever:

[TheVileOne]

I find it hard to believe that the fan backlash had NO affect at all on the halting of Justice League.

The studios do read these boards and they do monitor reactions and feedback. They dislike catering to the geeks at Comic Con, but its like a necessary evil.

[GreenKToo]

Viggo Mortensen then! LOL
Co-sign. I have been saying he needs to be Aquaman for like forever.

[The Major]

They dislike catering to the geeks at Comic Con, but its like a necessary evil.

Why do they dislike catering to the fans?

[dnno1]

A movie has to tank REALLY hard to not make money back. Too many people look at just the US box office while ignoring the much bigger worldwide total. Then there's DVDs.

60% of the films made never make their money back at the box office in their domestic run. That's a statistic that comes from the MPAA (http://mpaa.org/piracy_EntInd.asp). Making a film profitable is not that easy to do and trying to make 7 films profitable is even more difficult.

MAKE marketing potential with a quality movie and smart advertising. Iron Man is no more popular than the the individual League members, and he just had one of the biggest superhero movies ever.

It doesn't seem to be working for the Hulk. Each character franchise is different and will produce different box office results. That is why it is more riskier produce 7 films about 7 different characters, expecially when you have no background on how the general audience will receive 5 of them.

Furthermore, you have to think LONG TERM. Profits on a single movie in an intended series are not the sole measure of success. Batman Begins was not a runaway box office smash. It made $200 million, but that was considered modest relative to the recognition of the character. But what it did was create good will with audiences. Now The Dark Knight is poised to be the biggest movie of the year, and the second sequel will undoubtedly be big.

True but most people look at the box office results and this determines the future of the franchise. Batman and Superman are flagship characters and their biggest franchises. The would be a good example of the potential success of characters like Aquaman, and Martian Manhunner for example who are not as popular. Even Wonder Woman would fall in a different category alltogether.

And if JLA disappoints or bombs, or audiences end up hating certain characters because they're played by teenyboppers or non-actors, then other superhero movies will NOT be made with DC's A-listers.

That's not necessarily true. Even if it is not successful, there could still be spin offs of the characters that were well received. JL hurting the other films is a misconception.

X-Men is a team of team members, that started out as a team. The Wolverine and Magneto spinoffs are milking an established franchise; they probably never stood a chance of being made first as solo films anyway.

That doesn't mean that you can't use the concept to feature your lower tier characters and assess which of them could be potential spin-offs. Starting off as a team or not has nothing to do with that.

The Incredible Hulk suffered from the shadow of Ang Lee's crap, a full five years after that movie. Even Batman Begins suffered from Batman and Robin, with an EIGHT year gap in between. These are examples of the danger of rushing out crappy movies that turn audiences off. All the more reason to take it slow and get it right.

How about the fact that the Hulk as a franchise can only yield so much at the box office. He is a monster and his franchise should be treated as such to be profitable. It should be operated on a low budget ($50 to $80 million) in order to see a decent return on investment. I believe it would still make the same gross on a budget that low which would make it a profit.

Fans can and have influenced the suits above them. For example Jack Black Green Lantern was killed by fan backlash, even though they had a star and a script ready.

Like I said before, that's if they want you to, and once again you can not influence them by yourself. If they saw a market for a comedy they would have still went with the project in spite of how you felt about it.

Completely irrelevant. Even if you have no effect on things, it doesn't hurt you to express your opinion and spread word of mouth as you see fit. That actually helps your position, because it can not only affect a current movie but also the way movies are made in the future. Certainly not the same thing as smashing your fist against a wall (one of the dumbest analogies I've ever heard).:whatever:

That still won't change the fact that the person who is writing the script is still the writer and the director is the director and the two get the credit for their creations (and rightfully so). Sure, you can say whatever you want, but I don't think it's going to change much.

[dnno1]

I find it hard to believe that the fan backlash had NO affect at all on the halting of Justice League.

The studios do read these boards and they do monitor reactions and feedback. They dislike catering to the geeks at Comic Con, but its like a necessary evil.

Nobody has reported it as such (fan backlash affecting production) so it is safe to say it didn't. I don't think there is enough info out there to make a fair assessment about the film yet. As for Comic Con, they don't mind going out there for good PR and for fan reaction. What they probably don't like is being pressured into presenting something to the fans that is not ready to be presented at that time.

[The Major]

What they probably don't like is being pressured into presenting something to the fans that is not ready to be presented at that time.

Okay.

[ZIPBAGS]

I don't think Bale said he wouldn't do Batman without Nolan. I think he was more concerned about Nolan getting shafted for a JLA film. I am sure if they promise Nolan a third Bat film. Bale might be consider a JLA film.

I still want Ryan Reynolds for Flash. Nathan Fillion for Green Lantern!

[Webhead2006]

yea rr would be probably a great flash and i know lots of people have said they would love for fillion for hal jordan he has said in interviews he wouldnt want to play the character.

[Dark Knight]

I find it hard to believe that the fan backlash had NO affect at all on the halting of Justice League.

The studios do read these boards and they do monitor reactions and feedback.


Yep...most of us sensible ones have been ripping on this rush job production with Miller at the helm and the crappy actors involved.

They can't help but listen....

[ClarkLuther55]

60% of the films made never make their money back at the box office in their domestic run.

60% of films is not the same as 60% of bankable superhero summer blockbusters.

Furthermore, using domestic box office only (although admittedly studios place a premium on this statistic) ignores worldwide box office that can easily double a film's money, as well as DVD sales, toys, and sequels that are created because of the goodwill that a quality movie will build.

It doesn't seem to be working for the Hulk.

The Incredible Hulk was clearly Marvel's second-tier film after Iron Man, which was barely marketed and advertised (the star Edward Norton even refused to show up for events because of behind-the-scenes conflicts). Furthermore, I already brought up that Ang Lee's crap from five years ago hurt this film.

Each character franchise is different and will produce different box office results. That is why it is more riskier produce 7 films about 7 different characters, expecially when you have no background on how the general audience will receive 5 of them.

Put all your eggs into Justice League and you'll lose ALL your superheroes if the movie sucks. If Flash disappoints you can still do Green Lantern or Wonder Woman.

True but most people look at the box office results and this determines the future of the franchise. Batman and Superman are flagship characters and their biggest franchises. The would be a good example of the potential success of characters like Aquaman, and Martian Manhunner for example who are not as popular. Even Wonder Woman would fall in a different category alltogether.

Those characters could make more money than Batman and Superman did if their movies are good, AND well marketed. Iron Man was a nobody to the mainstream public before his movie.

That's not necessarily true. Even if it is not successful, there could still be spin offs of the characters that were well received. JL hurting the other films is a misconception.

That's quite a weak "rebuttal."

"The movie disappointed and the public hates most of its characters, but there were a COUPLE who may still be usable."

At least TRY to come up with something better than that.

How about the fact that the Hulk as a franchise can only yield so much at the box office.

I love how you just made up your little "fact" here and expect me to accept it as such.

2003's Hulk opened with a huge first weekend box office. But it was made by a director who was hired on his name, and not any actual understanding of the character. The movie was boring and lacked the action people wanted to see, causing the movie to plummet in subsequent weeks.

2008's The Incredible Hulk was under-advertised.

To say the Hulk can only make so much no matter what is completely unsupported. Hulk has bigger name recognition than any comic character outside of Spider-Man and DC's trinity.

Like I said before, that's if they want you to, and once again you can not influence them by yourself.

Don't move the goalposts. I said that fans can influence the suits, something which should seem obvious and is supported by my Jack Black Green Lantern example. It matters not one bit if you want to qualify that with "if they want you to," because they obviously DO care if enough people say so.

That still won't change the fact that the person who is writing the script is still the writer and the director is the director and the two get the credit for their creations (and rightfully so). Sure, you can say whatever you want, but I don't think it's going to change much.

I don't HAVE to give my respect to any of these writers or directors just because. Deal with it.:whatever:

[ClarkLuther55]

I find it hard to believe that the fan backlash had NO affect at all on the halting of Justice League.

The studios do read these boards and they do monitor reactions and feedback. They dislike catering to the geeks at Comic Con, but its like a necessary evil.

Me either. While studios obviously don't always listen, there IS evidence that they do. Jack Black GL was killed. Spider-Man 3 was the movie that fanboys whined 5 years for (disappointing as it may have been, cramming in Venom was directly catering to fanboy requests). The Incredible Hulk was made lighter and more action packed because numerous people including the fans thought 2003 Hulk was too talky (surprise surprise).

dnno1 is trying to delude himself into some fantasy world where the suits don't listen, because obviously businessmen are where they are by not listening to their customers.:whatever:

If WB was so damn confident in their Justice League of Australian Mortals movie, they would have talked a whole lot more about the movie and debunked any of the numerous crappy rumors about it. But they didn't. I suspected a huge coverup to hide behind-the-scenes chaos and rewrites.

[Webhead2006]

that is probably true clarkluthor.

[dnno1]

60% of films is not the same as 60% of bankable superhero summer blockbusters.

Furthermore, using domestic box office only (although admittedly studios place a premium on this statistic) ignores worldwide box office that can easily double a film's money, as well as DVD sales, toys, and sequels that are created because of the goodwill that a quality movie will build.

So you want to change the facts to suit your argument. Is that it? Look first of all, if a franchise has never been released to the public before, we actually don't know if it truly is bankable or not so it must be compared against the success rate of other films that have been released. It may be better if compared to other films in its genre but there are no guarantees. Here is a list of Superhero films that have been released over the last 30 years:

Batman
Blade
Captain America
Catwoman
Daredevil
Elektra
Fantastic Four
Hellboy
Hulk
Iron Man
Love and Plutonium
My Super Ex-Girlfriend
Mystery Men
Red Sonja
Rocketeer
Sidekick
Sky High
Spawn
Spider-Man
Steel
Supergirl
Superman
The Crow
The Incredibles
The Mask
The Phantom
The Shadow
The Specials
TNMT
Ultraviolet
Unbreakable
X-Men
Zoom

I am going to tell you right now, out of that list of 33 films, there are only 13 that would be considered bankable (considering the fact that they may have had more than one film or they made a lot of money at the box office). 13 out of 33 is a 39% success rate which is slightly worse than the 40% success (60% failure) rate posted. This proves that it doesn't take that much for these types of films to tank.


The Incredible Hulk was clearly Marvel's second-tier film after Iron Man, which was barely marketed and advertised (the star Edward Norton even refused to show up for events because of behind-the-scenes conflicts). Furthermore, I already brought up that Ang Lee's crap from five years ago hurt this film.

This is not clear to me. First of all, the Hulk is one of Marvel's flagship characters. I don't think they would consider him second tier. Second of all, if he were, they wouldn't have released the film as a summer blockbuster film. It would have been released in February or October or some other month like that. Don't give my that cock and bull story about it being a second tier film. That is just a disservice to the brand.

Put all your eggs into Justice League and you'll lose ALL your superheroes if the movie sucks. If Flash disappoints you can still do Green Lantern or Wonder Woman.

Although that is possible, it is usually the case that a film with an ensemble cast stands a better chance of success than a solo film with with a second tier character. You could have said the same thing about the first issue of All-Star Comics back in 1940 or Justice League of America in 1960, or The Superfriends back in 1973 or Justice League in 1997. It didn't happen. The Justice League is a successful recognized brand that has lasted more than 40 years. That is what it has going for it (more so than X-Men) and the fact that it will feature established franchise characters like Superman and Batman only augments it chances for success. In addition the project is being helmed by a competent director with a script that is supposedly pretty good. If Marvel couldn't turn the Hulk into a blockbuster franchise after two tries, I wouldn't expect DC to bat 1000 with Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and others. As it is right now they are taking a long time getting their projects off the ground.

Those characters could make more money than Batman and Superman did if their movies are good, AND well marketed. Iron Man was a nobody to the mainstream public before his movie.

Iron Man is as well known as Spider Man, X-Men or the Hulk. He may not be as popular as the first two, but he does have the name recognition.


That's quite a weak "rebuttal."

"The movie disappointed and the public hates most of its characters, but there were a COUPLE who may still be usable."

At least TRY to come up with something better than that.

Right off the bat, Batman and Superman will still be useable. their franchises have withstood flops and dissappointments. I am sure there will be other characters. Then again, I don't expect "Justice League: Morta"l to be a flop.

I love how you just made up your little "fact" here and expect me to accept it as such.

2003's Hulk opened with a huge first weekend box office. But it was made by a director who was hired on his name, and not any actual understanding of the character. The movie was boring and lacked the action people wanted to see, causing the movie to plummet in subsequent weeks.

2008's The Incredible Hulk was under-advertised.

To say the Hulk can only make so much no matter what is completely unsupported. Hulk has bigger name recognition than any comic character outside of Spider-Man and DC's trinity.

The fact that both films had similar opening weekends and from the looks of it similar grosses is proof enough that they the franchise can only make about $220 to $250 million at best. This is not made up. You for one have already lowered your expectations for it calling it a second tier franchise.

I don't HAVE to give my respect to any of these writers or directors just because. Deal with it.:whatever:

I don't have to. You just said so.

[The Major]

Iron Man is as well known as Spider Man, X-Men or the Hulk.

Thanks to the movie.

He did have exposure before with a cartoon and the animated movie but it was nothing compared to Spider-man or Hulk. They've both had multiple cartoons over generations and Hulk had a hit tv show decades ago.
I'm not sure how well the public could recognize him. They maybe had an idea of what he looked like but not on the scale of someone like Spider-man or Hulk.

They certainly didn't know the details of the mythos. Even with the movie I bet most people couldn't recognize the Mandarin on sight assuming they even knew he existed at all. The people who watched the cartoon would, of course. Only it didn't get the exposure Hulk, Spider-man or X-men did from their successful cartoon series gave them. And he's the biggest enemy IM has!


He may not be as popular as the first two, but he does have the name recognition.


Only after the movie.

Right off the bat, Batman and Superman will still be useable. their franchises have withstood flops and dissappointments.

Agreed.


I am sure there will be other characters. Then again, I don't expect "Justice League: Morta"l to be a flop.

There are other characters and even teams. DC's got tens of thousands to choose from. Unfortunately their first hurdle is to get WB's attention. They can't make a movie out of a franchise they don't know exists even if they own it.

The second hurdle is that their film gets made at all, this step is difficult but I don't think they're any different from any other films at this stage.

The third hurdle is that the film makers making the film not only "get" the concept but do a good job making it. Either makes it that much more easy for the film to tank. They don't have the respect or knowledge from being shown to people for generations in multiple media like Batman and Superman to save them.

This is getting better with directors like Zach Snyder, Christopher Nolan and del Toro.

Their hardest hurdle is getting a second shot if their first film or tv show fails. It doesn't matter if WB completely messed up the movie whether it be they made a bad movie or they made a movie which is absolutely nothing like the franchise it's supposed to be adapting. They'll see the franchise as permanently unsalvagable.

Naturally, this is all just my opinion from outside your industry. I'm sure there's details which I have missed that I'm not close enough to account for.

[protocida]

Zach Snyder, please!

[GL1]

AWESOME POST, Kevin Smith... my comments.

2010 IS THE ONLY CHANCE
- OR 2012... or or 2013. In my ideal world, JLA is shot three-movies at once like LOTR. I can wait a few years if they're going to do it 'right.'

RESPECT THE SOURCE
- Aaaaamen.

NO SECOND STRINGERS
- Cameo second stringers though. And certain characters, namely Batman, Martian Manhunter and Aquaman don't have to take part directly in combat, imho for the film to be awesome.

NO LESS THAN 2 HOURS & 15 MINUTES LONG
- Of course, character development is one thing missing from superhero movies of the past.

HOLY TRINITY
- Yes and No. Part of the problem with the Holy Trin is overexposure... it would not be good if the movie is "about" them and the rest of the league is supporting cast. Its gotta be truly ensemble... that said, it is impossible not to slide the spot light to Supe and Bats... hopefully a talented filmmaker can make Wondy not seem like affirmative action of the Trinity.

HAL JORDAN
- As a huge John Stewart fan, even I love the idea of Hal having a scene

THE FLASH
- Agreed, though I'd pitch Barry a bit older to set up for Wally in the near future, and I'd also have him die in the climax of the film

NO MORE SUPERMAN THE WUSS
- Yes and no. Superman does hold back, he does have a very powerful moral compass that some people would consider "outdated" and he needs it to keep himself from utterly decimating the planet. I think that should be honored, but it should be shown WHY he has it. The cartoon took a long time to get to that and the movies really didn't let it out much. Let Superman cut loose at the end, a real Dragonball Z-type battle. People will get it 'oh, that's why he's such a punk!'

BATMAN: THE THINKING MAN
- Yes, and yes, and then yes again. I don't know about the technology side, as the Begins series has him with a more realistically limited skillset, but having him be the thinking guy, just being extremely cunning would validate his place on the team for the doubters, and send geekgasms through the toes of Bat-fans.

A VILLAIN WORTHY OF THEIR TALENTS
- I see your villain and raise you a threat. The storyline and threat have to be bigger than any one leaguer could conceivably take on. A foe stronger than Superman, more versatile than GL, not daunted by Flash's speed, not easily outsmarted by Batman, that can require more sophisticated team tactics than 'dogpile on Darkseid.' My fave is Despero for this purpose. There are other villains who could do it, but at the end of the day, if the entire world is not in immediate danger, at least one or two of the leaguers could conceivably take the day off with no worries.

NO ORIGIN, PLEASE
- Origin please. Brief, organic. Once seperate heroes team up from early in the movie and by the time the end credits roll they've chosen a name. I want to be there to see it. Get all the base and gadgets and etc and JLA protocol and teleporters and stuff in the second movie, when it won't detract from developing these characters.

STAPLES OF THE LEAGUE
- Yes, MM. I don't think MM needs to be a combatant. Because of his ability to form the league, and his telepathic and shapeshifting abilities, limiting him from combat, any way you like for the first film, seems like a good idea. Honestly, that's less bruisers to keep up with for plotting the action and pacing and creating a suitable challenge. He can be full power in a sequel, imho. Aquaman too... he only really needs one good scene 'with' the League... and one really glorious moment where people can say, 'oh, Aquaman might be cool...'

CASTING WITH JUSTICE
- With Justice? LOL! But yeah, casting is a big thing. Every one of the leaguers and the main villain have to be inspired choices. In an ideal world, Tom Welling and Christian Bale would be Superman and Batman. But honestly, I'd save the big names for the lesser known characters, GL, Flash, Aquaman and Martian Manhunter, and villain... and cast reprisers or 'perfect unknowns' for the Trinity.

GET PEOPLE WHO GIVE A DAMN
- Please, yes.

THEY HAVE TO LOOK LIKE THE JLA
- Yes please.

IMPRESSIVE. MOST IMPRESSIVE
- The hard part... doing something impressive that feels impressive instead of hokey and corny. How big a thing can superman lift before it seems ridiculous? A jet? A planetoid? The Moon? It needs to be done, but, imho, the hardest part, especially because these individuals have such incredible abilities and have taken on such insane feats in the comics.

TEAM SCORE
- Clearly. In my perfect world, the individual scores of the film involve rifts on previous themes. The Wonder Woman theme song chords and resonance in Diana's Theme when she first appears. The Batman TAS orchestral chant (Bum, bum, bum-bum!) as part of his theme. The Classic Williams Score playing for Superman's triumphant... triumph.

NOT ANOTHER CARTOON
- So right.

AN AMERICAN NAME
- Awesome compromise.

DON'T LISTEN TO THE HATERS
- You right.


My Own thoughts, even though you covered everyting:

WONDER WOMAN
This is the one hero I would love to have a solo movie before a JL movie, since she's been out of the public eye for so very long. She has to be incredible, not the den mother stereotype, not the "badass" pointless plotless chick Hollywood has been taunting us with for the past few years (not that she shouldn't have that one badass moment), but fully realized warrior woman. Model her on Ripley if you have to... then cast Sigourney Weaver if you lack that much imagination to create a well developed growing female character, but make Wonder Woman worthy to stand between Batman and Superman. Make her a leader. Batman is the brains. Superman is the heart. Wonder Woman is the soul... she's the one who verbalizes it, speaks for them, she's the one who finds the compromise... she's the one who the team looks to in their worst conflicts.

REALISM DOESN'T MEAN GRITTY (OR REALISTIC)
A lot of times, people get hung up on realism and forget that anything that flows organically has a feeling of realism. If Superman's abilities and origin remain consistent throughout the film, it doesn't matter if he catches a plane... Superman now has realism.

LEAVE CLICHES AT THE DOOR
I know it's classic DC, I know how we love the silver age, but give me a twist... other than one of my favorite characters is secretly EVIL (I'm looking at you Max Lord)... make fun of some superhero cliches a bit even while going balls to the wall in classic superhero action. Be a smart movie, please. And don't just put stuff int he movie as an excuse to get something else in... everything has to be cohesive.

[dnno1]

Thanks to the movie.

He did have exposure before with a cartoon and the animated movie but it was nothing compared to Spider-man or Hulk. They've both had multiple cartoons over generations and Hulk had a hit tv show decades ago.
I'm not sure how well the public could recognize him. They maybe had an idea of what he looked like but not on the scale of someone like Spider-man or Hulk.

Granted, Spider-Man is Marvel's Flagship character, but Iron Man is well known and has been even before this film. I mentioned this in a previous post to ClarkLuther.

They certainly didn't know the details of the mythos. Even with the movie I bet most people couldn't recognize the Mandarin on sight assuming they even knew he existed at all. The people who watched the cartoon would, of course. Only it didn't get the exposure Hulk, Spider-man or X-men did from their successful cartoon series gave them. And he's the biggest enemy IM has!

There are not very many characters who many people do know about their mythos. That's kind of why writers and directors get away with origin stories or adaptations from existing comic book or novel storylines. Although this is the case, people do recognize or know of the character by name. This is not unlike someone knowing about Coca Cola, but not knowing how it originated. I think it is called brand recognition. Iron Man is a brand that has been well known before the film was released. If it wasn't it would not have made more than $100 million in its first weekend.

There are other characters and even teams. DC's got tens of thousands to choose from. Unfortunately their first hurdle is to get WB's attention. They can't make a movie out of a franchise they don't know exists even if they own it.

To be honest with you, although DC has gone through numerous characters over the decades, they only promote 57 or so, and of that number maybe 7 are their most popular. This is far less than Marvel who publicly boast 5000.

[chamber-music]

Fairfax, Va.: Dear Mr. Levitz:
Big DC and Batman fan; I've got two questions for you.
Will DC ever re-release the "Crusade" and "Search" parts of the Batman Knightfall series in trade paperback? While story line is brilliant, the trilogy doesn't make that much sense when the 2nd volume ends with Batman in a wheel chair in Latin America, and the 3rd volume begins with Batman walking again in Gotham.

Also, why won't DC allow for the main actors in their recently released movies like Dark Knight, and Superman Returns to come back for the upcoming Justice League movie? Marvel is making sure all their main actors are coming for the Avengers film. Virtually all the fan websites want Christian Bale, and the like to come back for continuity reasons, yet DC keeps saying no. What gives?
Thank you.

Paul Levitz: There's no final casting decisions on a Justice League movie at this point. It's still very much in development.
from the horses mouth

[EnigmaN]

WOnder woman and super girl will go at it

[Jake Cassidy]

AWESOME POST, Kevin Smith... my comments.

2010 IS THE ONLY CHANCE
- OR 2012... or or 2013. In my ideal world, JLA is shot three-movies at once like LOTR. I can wait a few years if they're going to do it 'right.'

RESPECT THE SOURCE
- Aaaaamen.

NO SECOND STRINGERS
- Cameo second stringers though. And certain characters, namely Batman, Martian Manhunter and Aquaman don't have to take part directly in combat, imho for the film to be awesome.

NO LESS THAN 2 HOURS & 15 MINUTES LONG
- Of course, character development is one thing missing from superhero movies of the past.

HOLY TRINITY
- Yes and No. Part of the problem with the Holy Trin is overexposure... it would not be good if the movie is "about" them and the rest of the league is supporting cast. Its gotta be truly ensemble... that said, it is impossible not to slide the spot light to Supe and Bats... hopefully a talented filmmaker can make Wondy not seem like affirmative action of the Trinity.

HAL JORDAN
- As a huge John Stewart fan, even I love the idea of Hal having a scene

THE FLASH
- Agreed, though I'd pitch Barry a bit older to set up for Wally in the near future, and I'd also have him die in the climax of the film

NO MORE SUPERMAN THE WUSS
- Yes and no. Superman does hold back, he does have a very powerful moral compass that some people would consider "outdated" and he needs it to keep himself from utterly decimating the planet. I think that should be honored, but it should be shown WHY he has it. The cartoon took a long time to get to that and the movies really didn't let it out much. Let Superman cut loose at the end, a real Dragonball Z-type battle. People will get it 'oh, that's why he's such a punk!'

BATMAN: THE THINKING MAN
- Yes, and yes, and then yes again. I don't know about the technology side, as the Begins series has him with a more realistically limited skillset, but having him be the thinking guy, just being extremely cunning would validate his place on the team for the doubters, and send geekgasms through the toes of Bat-fans.

A VILLAIN WORTHY OF THEIR TALENTS
- I see your villain and raise you a threat. The storyline and threat have to be bigger than any one leaguer could conceivably take on. A foe stronger than Superman, more versatile than GL, not daunted by Flash's speed, not easily outsmarted by Batman, that can require more sophisticated team tactics than 'dogpile on Darkseid.' My fave is Despero for this purpose. There are other villains who could do it, but at the end of the day, if the entire world is not in immediate danger, at least one or two of the leaguers could conceivably take the day off with no worries.

NO ORIGIN, PLEASE
- Origin please. Brief, organic. Once seperate heroes team up from early in the movie and by the time the end credits roll they've chosen a name. I want to be there to see it. Get all the base and gadgets and etc and JLA protocol and teleporters and stuff in the second movie, when it won't detract from developing these characters.

STAPLES OF THE LEAGUE
- Yes, MM. I don't think MM needs to be a combatant. Because of his ability to form the league, and his telepathic and shapeshifting abilities, limiting him from combat, any way you like for the first film, seems like a good idea. Honestly, that's less bruisers to keep up with for plotting the action and pacing and creating a suitable challenge. He can be full power in a sequel, imho. Aquaman too... he only really needs one good scene 'with' the League... and one really glorious moment where people can say, 'oh, Aquaman might be cool...'

CASTING WITH JUSTICE
- With Justice? LOL! But yeah, casting is a big thing. Every one of the leaguers and the main villain have to be inspired choices. In an ideal world, Tom Welling and Christian Bale would be Superman and Batman. But honestly, I'd save the big names for the lesser known characters, GL, Flash, Aquaman and Martian Manhunter, and villain... and cast reprisers or 'perfect unknowns' for the Trinity.

GET PEOPLE WHO GIVE A DAMN
- Please, yes.

THEY HAVE TO LOOK LIKE THE JLA
- Yes please.

IMPRESSIVE. MOST IMPRESSIVE
- The hard part... doing something impressive that feels impressive instead of hokey and corny. How big a thing can superman lift before it seems ridiculous? A jet? A planetoid? The Moon? It needs to be done, but, imho, the hardest part, especially because these individuals have such incredible abilities and have taken on such insane feats in the comics.

TEAM SCORE
- Clearly. In my perfect world, the individual scores of the film involve rifts on previous themes. The Wonder Woman theme song chords and resonance in Diana's Theme when she first appears. The Batman TAS orchestral chant (Bum, bum, bum-bum!) as part of his theme. The Classic Williams Score playing for Superman's triumphant... triumph.

NOT ANOTHER CARTOON
- So right.

AN AMERICAN NAME
- Awesome compromise.

DON'T LISTEN TO THE HATERS
- You right.


My Own thoughts, even though you covered everyting:

WONDER WOMAN
This is the one hero I would love to have a solo movie before a JL movie, since she's been out of the public eye for so very long. She has to be incredible, not the den mother stereotype, not the "badass" pointless plotless chick Hollywood has been taunting us with for the past few years (not that she shouldn't have that one badass moment), but fully realized warrior woman. Model her on Ripley if you have to... then cast Sigourney Weaver if you lack that much imagination to create a well developed growing female character, but make Wonder Woman worthy to stand between Batman and Superman. Make her a leader. Batman is the brains. Superman is the heart. Wonder Woman is the soul... she's the one who verbalizes it, speaks for them, she's the one who finds the compromise... she's the one who the team looks to in their worst conflicts.

REALISM DOESN'T MEAN GRITTY (OR REALISTIC)
A lot of times, people get hung up on realism and forget that anything that flows organically has a feeling of realism. If Superman's abilities and origin remain consistent throughout the film, it doesn't matter if he catches a plane... Superman now has realism.

LEAVE CLICHES AT THE DOOR
I know it's classic DC, I know how we love the silver age, but give me a twist... other than one of my favorite characters is secretly EVIL (I'm looking at you Max Lord)... make fun of some superhero cliches a bit even while going balls to the wall in classic superhero action. Be a smart movie, please. And don't just put stuff int he movie as an excuse to get something else in... everything has to be cohesive.

That's brilliant. :woot:

[biolumen]

Paul Levitz: There's no final casting decisions on a Justice League movie at this point. It's still very much in development.
Just when was this said by Levitz? Was this posted to a board? Who was asking the question? Was this some kind of Q & A?

Mr. Levitz is president of DC Comics, so he might....might....have the inside scoops as to this movies' current status. We sorta knew that some recasting might take place, but the words "very much in development" point to the movie being on the front burner instead of being "tabled", or whatever term you want to use for indefinitely delayed. Interesting.

[biolumen]

Just when was this said by Levitz? Was this posted to a board? Who was asking the question? Was this some kind of Q & A?.
Found the answer myself. Apparently Mr. Levitz participated in an online Q & A and the Washington Post posted a transcript of it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/07/17/DI2008071700659.html

So he did say that the JL film was "still very much in development". Nice.

[ClarkLuther55]

So you want to change the facts to suit your argument. Is that it? Look first of all, if a franchise has never been released to the public before, we actually don't know if it truly is bankable or not so it must be compared against the success rate of other films that have been released. It may be better if compared to other films in its genre but there are no guarantees. Here is a list of Superhero films that have been released over the last 30 years:

Batman
Blade
Captain America
Catwoman
Daredevil
Elektra
Fantastic Four
Hellboy
Hulk
Iron Man
Love and Plutonium
My Super Ex-Girlfriend
Mystery Men
Red Sonja
Rocketeer
Sidekick
Sky High
Spawn
Spider-Man
Steel
Supergirl
Superman
The Crow
The Incredibles
The Mask
The Phantom
The Shadow
The Specials
TNMT
Ultraviolet
Unbreakable
X-Men
Zoom

I am going to tell you right now, out of that list of 33 films, there are only 13 that would be considered bankable

I love how you manipulate and twist the numbers by including tons of obscure, low-budget direct-to-video movies and garbage films like Steel, CINO and Ultraviolet. Seriously, Sidekick, The Specials, and Love and Plutonium? I never even heard of those movies until right now. Quite a few of those movies are even comedy spoofs and not true superhero action blockbusters.

You talk about comparing possible new films to similar movies. A better approach would be to look at the superhero blockbusters in this decade's boom:

Blade
X-Men
Spider-Man
Blade 2
X2: X-Men United
Daredevil
Hulk
Spider-Man 2
Blade Trinity
Elektra
CINO
Fantastic Four
Batman Begins
X-Men: The Last Stand
Superman Returns
Spider-Man 3
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
Iron Man
The Incredible Hulk
The Dark Knight

Of these, only Blade Trinity, Elektra, and CINO have been true bombs. Even lousy movies like Fantastic Four have made their money.

This is not clear to me. First of all, the Hulk is one of Marvel's flagship characters. I don't think they would consider him second tier.

How bad is your reading comprehension? Of course Hulk is one of Marvel's main characters, I said as much in my previous post when I stated that his fame was only below Spider-Man and DC's Trinity.

But The Incredible Hulk, the MOVIE, was clearly Marvel's secondary film this summer.

Although that is possible, it is usually the case that a film with an ensemble cast stands a better chance of success than a solo film with with a second tier character.

Of course JLA, with Batman and Superman will draw more money than a solo Flash film. However, that JLA film could be one and done if it's mediocre.

Take Flash, or Green Lantern, and raise him to A-List status the Iron Man way. Give them their own huge franchise, build UP to a JLA film, and you'll see even more money.

Iron Man is as well known as Spider Man, X-Men or the Hulk. He may not be as popular as the first two, but he does have the name recognition.

Flat-out BS. Spider-Man and the Hulk have been A-listers for decades, with multiple cartoon series and live action movies and shows. X-Men was the hottest comic in the 80s and became a favorite for an entire generation of kids with the 1990s cartoon.

Iron Man...had a short-lived, mostly crappy cartoon that ran in syndication on Sundays during the 1990s. And some forgotten, barely animated cartoon from the 1960s.

Right off the bat, Batman and Superman will still be useable. their franchises have withstood flops and dissappointments. I am sure there will be other characters.

Oh sure, they'll still be usable...but not nearly as bankable for at least several years. Batman and Robin ensured that no Batman movie would be made for the next 8 years, and even watered down Batman Begins's box office. Superman Returns disappointed, and now further sequels are barely even discussed.

Then again, I don't expect "Justice League: Morta"l to be a flop.

It would've make its money like Fantastic Four, while underwhelming audiences and pissing off fanboys (freaking Armie Hammer and Jay Baruchel?). Then the sequel if it gets made will disappoint even more, because even stupid audiences won't be fooled twice.

The fact that both films had similar opening weekends and from the looks of it similar grosses is proof enough that they the franchise can only make about $220 to $250 million at best. This is not made up. You for one have already lowered your expectations for it calling it a second tier franchise.

Do you even know what "proof" is? A movie which was twisted around into talky crap by a name director who didn't understand the comic, and a movie that was clearly under-advertised, are NOT proof that the Hulk can't make more.

I don't have to. You just said so.

Nice comeback.:whatever: I still have no reason to respect any hack director just because you say so.

[dnno1]

I love how you manipulate and twist the numbers by including tons of obscure, low-budget direct-to-video movies and garbage films like Steel, CINO and Ultraviolet. Seriously, Sidekick, The Specials, and Love and Plutonium? I never even heard of those movies until right now. Quite a few of those movies are even comedy spoofs and not true superhero action blockbusters.

You talk about comparing possible new films to similar movies. A better approach would be to look at the superhero blockbusters in this decade's boom:

Blade
X-Men
Spider-Man
Blade 2
X2: X-Men United
Daredevil
Hulk
Spider-Man 2
Blade Trinity
Elektra
CINO
Fantastic Four
Batman Begins
X-Men: The Last Stand
Superman Returns
Spider-Man 3
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
Iron Man
The Incredible Hulk
The Dark Knight

Of these, only Blade Trinity, Elektra, and CINO have been true bombs. Even lousy movies like Fantastic Four have made their money.

If anybody is manipulating the facts it is you. That is not the true population of that genre of films. What I listed was closer and I got it from Amazon.com. You having not heard of a few of them is only testimony of your ignorance and narrowmindedness and I only wish that you would stop going further (you will only make it worse for yourself). For every Blade, there was a "Meteor Man" before it. Since you want to list films adapted directly from comic books instead of just plain superhero films you failed to list films like these:

Batman and Robin
Batman Returns
Batman Forever
Superman II
Superman III
Superman IV
Barbwire
Swamp Thing
Return of Swamp Thing
Tales from the Crypt
Sheena:Queen of the Jungle
Conan The Barbarian
Conan The Destroyer
Doc Savage

Plus the others that I mentioned before. If you do the math on that you would see that the percentage of successes are far less than the amount of failures/disappointments. Sure you can cherry pick out only the ones that did well but that doesn't illustrate what a studio had to go through to get a success.

How bad is your reading comprehension? Of course Hulk is one of Marvel's main characters, I said as much in my previous post when I stated that his fame was only below Spider-Man and DC's Trinity.

But The Incredible Hulk, the MOVIE, was clearly Marvel's secondary film this summer.

My point is that they did not intend it to be a secondary film since then released it during the summer blockbuster season. It is obvious to me that Marvel Entertainment felt that this would be competitive enough to go up against films like Indiana Jones and Kung Fu Panda, but I guess it was no more popular than the first one. Your saying that it was a secondary film is only downplaying the fact that it rebooting the franchise didn't really help it any.

Of course JLA, with Batman and Superman will draw more money than a solo Flash film. However, that JLA film could be one and done if it's mediocre.

Take Flash, or Green Lantern, and raise him to A-List status the Iron Man way. Give them their own huge franchise, build UP to a JLA film, and you'll see even more money.

If you want to do it the right way you will need to build a large base of fans behind these characters the way Spider-Man, Iron Man, Hulk, and the X-Men were done. This happened 40 years ago when Marvel introduced these characters to younger audiences with television cartoons and/or live action television series, and continued it in some form in almost each decade afterwards (a similar thing happend with both Superman and Batman). The last 25 years was influential enough to inspire the popularity of these films on the big screen since the generation of that period is now of the target market age for moviegoers. Yes, what I am saying is that Flash and Green Lantern will not be very popular unless they are exposed to a younger audience many years before they get to the big screen. The just don't have the recognition to make a block buster film and would have a better chance in a supporting role in an ensemble film like the Justice League (which already has the recognition).

Flat-out BS. Spider-Man and the Hulk have been A-listers for decades, with multiple cartoon series and live action movies and shows. X-Men was the hottest comic in the 80s and became a favorite for an entire generation of kids with the 1990s cartoon.

Iron Man...had a short-lived, mostly crappy cartoon that ran in syndication on Sundays during the 1990s. And some forgotten, barely animated cartoon from the 1960s.

So it seems that you understand that they have been exposed to the public for decades. Note that I had said that Iron Man was as well known as Spider-Man and not "as Popular". Another factor that people liked about the character was the fact that he was a millionaire and that he had access to fancy tech toys. This attracted the techno-geek crowd to the film, but this shouldn't take away from the fact that Iron Man was a well known character.


Oh sure, they'll still be usable...but not nearly as bankable for at least several years. Batman and Robin ensured that no Batman movie would be made for the next 8 years, and even watered down Batman Begins's box office. Superman Returns disappointed, and now further sequels are barely even discussed.

8 years is not a long hiatus considering the fact that it took Superman 15 years between films, and 11 for the Fantastic Four. It looks like it will be 21 years for Captain America. Also you also have to consider the right vision, story, timing and the right director a film. I don't think they will not take Justice League seriously at all and if it won't be good they won't release it.



It would've make its money like Fantastic Four, while underwhelming audiences and pissing off fanboys (freaking Armie Hammer and Jay Baruchel?). Then the sequel if it gets made will disappoint even more, because even stupid audiences won't be fooled twice.

Look we don't know what this film will look like before it gets made and we are judging prematurely. From the looks of it Hammer looks like a good actor judging from the trailer of his latest film and I don't know if it was ever confirmed that Baruchel would be in JLM. I think you are over reacting and its too early for that.

Do you even know what "proof" is? A movie which was twisted around into talky crap by a name director who didn't understand the comic, and a movie that was clearly under-advertised, are NOT proof that the Hulk can't make more.

And they both produced a similar box office result. Yes, I know what proof is. You are not going to get any more than about $250 million at the box office with a Hulk film.

Nice comeback.:whatever: I still have no reason to respect any hack director just because you say so.

Thanks for the complement. Your attitude still won't change a thing.

[The Major]

Conan The Barbarian
Conan The Destroyer
Doc Savage

These aren't comic based movies. Conan is from novels and Savage is from the pulps.

[The Major]

Granted, Spider-Man is Marvel's Flagship character, but Iron Man is well known and has been even before this film. I mentioned this in a previous post to ClarkLuther.

How well known to do think he was? IM didn't have the same exposure as Hulk or the X-men had, either.

WW is well known, too. Most people don't know a single thing about her just what she looks like and most think all there is to her franchise is what Linda Carter 's tv show showed them which WB has not done much to rectify.

I notice you didn't disagree that the public don't have a clue about who his no.1 villain is. How can the public know a super-hero very well when they don't even know that?


There are not very many characters who many people do know about their mythos.

That's kind of why writers and directors get away with origin stories or adaptations from existing comic book or novel storylines.

Ageed.

Although this is the case, people do recognize or know of the character by name.

Most people recognized Iron Man from an old Ozzie song not the comic book character before the movie.

Knowing a character's name doesn't guarantee success. It's merely a stepping stone to build from. IM managed to do that since the film was good but many haven't.

This is not unlike someone knowing about Coca Cola, but not knowing how it originated. I think it is called brand recognition. Iron Man is a brand that has been well known before the film was released.

Bad analogy. All you need to know about coke is that it's a drink. There is nothing more to it. With franchises like Iron Man they need to know his abilities, origin, enemies, supporting cast etc to care about it.

If it wasn't it would not have made more than $100 million in its first weekend.

I disagree. Blade and Hellboy were less recognizable to the public then IM was and they still did well.

To be honest with you, although DC has gone through numerous characters over the decades, they only promote 57 or so, and of that number maybe 7 are their most popular. This is far less than Marvel who publicly boast 5000.

Could you be more precise which what you're getting at here? What do you mean by "promoting"? Films? cartoons? Merchandise?

Watch JLU. It shows a lot of characters in the DCU, which are more then 57, and there are far more in the super-hero comic books they didn't show. I'm not even touching the non-super-hero imprints DC has. They have hundreds of those, too.

[ClarkLuther55]

If anybody is manipulating the facts it is you. That is not the true population of that genre of films.

Oh yeah, because your list which includes the likes of The Specials, Love and Plutonium, The Sidekick (never heard of any of them), CINO (most ridiculous piece of crap to ever try to piggyback off a comic), the lameass Steel in Name Only movie starring Shaq, Ultraviolet (another crappy "girl power" movie that isn't even based on a real comic), the low-budget direct-to-video Captain America, etc. was SO MUCH MORE ACCURATE a list, full of movies that are more similar to blockbuster solo films about the individual League members.:whatever:

What I listed was closer and I got it from Amazon.com.

You have some kind of obsession with Amazon.com, which you always bring up as perfect proof of anything you say. Amazon.com is a shopping site, with usually a TINY number of user reviews from people who already liked the product in question. I still remember you using some stupidly small sample of 25 user reviews to represent the public's opinion on a movie (I think it was your beloved Ultraviolet :whatever: ) that was actually considered to suck, based on far bigger and better sources like IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, and the actual box office take.

You having not heard of a few of them is only testimony of your ignorance and narrowmindedness

Ask the average man on the street what he thought about Love and Plutonium. 99% of them would ask you what the hell you're talking about. Oh yeah, I'm so ignorant and narrowminded for never having heard of an obscure, low budget direct-to-video movie.

and I only wish that you would stop going further (you will only make it worse for yourself).

ROFL. Take your own advice man.

Since you want to list films adapted directly from comic books instead of just plain superhero films you failed to list films like these:

AGAIN your reading comprehension fails. "Adapted directly from comic books" is not my criteria. It's comic blockbusters released since this decades superhero boom.

Barbwire
Swamp Thing
Return of Swamp Thing
Tales from the Crypt
Sheena:Queen of the Jungle
Conan The Barbarian
Conan The Destroyer
Doc Savage

More stunning examples that are similar to Wonder Woman or Green Lantern, which can figure into an estimate of their box office potential, brought to you from Bizarro World.:whatever:

My point is that they did not intend it to be a secondary film since then released it during the summer blockbuster season.

How hard are things for you to understand? Yes, The Incredible Hulk would generally be considered a big budget film, and it was placed in the summer. But RELATIVE to Iron Man, or non-Marvel movies like Indiana Jones or The Dark Knight, it was clearly a second-tier summer movie.

It is obvious to me that Marvel Entertainment felt that this would be competitive enough to go up against films like Indiana Jones and Kung Fu Panda,

Which is why it avoided Indiana Jones by THREE weeks and debuted after Kung Fu Panda, not before or at the same time, right?:whatever:

If you want to do it the right way you will need to build a large base of fans behind these characters the way Spider-Man, Iron Man, Hulk, and the X-Men were done.

Stop lying about Iron Man being this huge mainstream icon on the level of Spidey or Hulk. The average person may have heard the name but they knew nothing about him. He was never even on a long-running, well-known cartoon like Superfriends, which featured the Leaguers who we're comparing him to.

So it seems that you understand that they have been exposed to the public for decades. Note that I had said that Iron Man was as well known as Spider-Man and not "as Popular".

Right there you're wrong. Iron Man WASN'T as well known as Spider-Man, stop trying to avoid the fact that you're wrong with stupid word games.

8 years is not a long hiatus considering the fact that it took Superman 15 years between films, and 11 for the Fantastic Four.

The Superman franchise died after Superman IV, which was considered crap. The Roger Corman Fantastic Four movie was NEVER RELEASED, and rumored to have been made on the cheap solely to secure the copyright. Neither of these are comparable to the Batman movie series, which was an established and living franchise until Batman and Robin flopped.

Again, you come to me with horrible analogies that show you don't really understand things.

Look we don't know what this film will look like before it gets made and we are judging prematurely.

We knew the actors involved, and the cast was laughably off. We got leaks about the script. We know of the WB being extremely silent to the point that they don't even bother refuting negative rumors, something they would be inclined to do if those rumors were false and they were really confident in their movie.

Thanks for the complement. Your attitude still won't change a thing.

LOL. You can't just let go of the fact that I don't have to respect any director just because, and that you still haven't given me a reason to.

[Dark Knight]

Well after seeing the Watchmen trailer before seeing TDK.....I am now convinced that if WB's goes with a JL movie in say 2012 with Bale and Routh, then Zack Snyder should be the director!

Without a doubt! :hehe:

[smooth3006]

Thanks for your comment. I've edited the section of the post regarding what I think respecting the source is, I advise you to read that. :D


are you kevin smith the actor / writer ? if so it's an honor to meet you.

[GL1]

That's brilliant. :woot:

Thanks... I'm just tagging along with someone else's brilliance.

[dnno1]

Oh yeah, because your list which includes the likes of The Specials, Love and Plutonium, The Sidekick (never heard of any of them), CINO (most ridiculous piece of crap to ever try to piggyback off a comic), the lameass Steel in Name Only movie starring Shaq, Ultraviolet (another crappy "girl power" movie that isn't even based on a real comic), the low-budget direct-to-video Captain America, etc. was SO MUCH MORE ACCURATE a list, full of movies that are more similar to blockbuster solo films about the individual League members.:whatever:

Look you don't segregate statistical data just so that it only shows what you want to see. That's what is called manipulating the facts. Only discussing the most successful films of the bunch is not really descriptive of what really went on in the industry to get where they are now. I don't know how many times I have to say that.

You have some kind of obsession with Amazon.com, which you always bring up as perfect proof of anything you say. Amazon.com is a shopping site, with usually a TINY number of user reviews from people who already liked the product in question. I still remember you using some stupidly small sample of 25 user reviews to represent the public's opinion on a movie (I think it was your beloved Ultraviolet :whatever: ) that was actually considered to suck, based on far bigger and better sources like IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, and the actual box office take.

Amazon.com owns IMDb, and I don't trust anything that comes from the makers of Fox News.

Ask the average man on the street what he thought about Love and Plutonium. 99% of them would ask you what the hell you're talking about. Oh yeah, I'm so ignorant and narrowminded for never having heard of an obscure, low budget direct-to-video movie.

That doesn't matter, that film is still part of the genre and it figures into the %60 figure from the MPAA that started this conversation off in the first place.

ROFL. Take your own advice man.

I don't think I need to and you should see the number of folks on my side of the screen that are rolling on the floor over your erroneous comments.

AGAIN your reading comprehension fails. "Adapted directly from comic books" is not my criteria. It's comic blockbusters released since this decades superhero boom.

The original discussion we were having was about this:

A movie has to tank REALLY hard to not make money back. Too many people look at just the US box office while ignoring the much bigger worldwide total. Then there's DVDs.

The MPAA states that %60 of films made never make their money back, so it isn't that hard a thing to do. If you are going to figure out that statistic yourself you need to include the entire population of that genre or all of the films made, not stratifying it or fixing the facts to suit your argument. That being said it would definitely be difficult to make 7 different films and make them profitable compared to one with an ensemble cast. That was what we were talking about but you went off on a tangent talking about bankable films adapted directly from the comics which had nothing to do with what we were originally discussing. If anybody fails at comprehending it is you.

More stunning examples that are similar to Wonder Woman or Green Lantern, which can figure into an estimate of their box office potential, brought to you from Bizarro World.:whatever:

I don't know for a fact how those films will perform at the box office since there is no history of past performance (I don't see how you would either). The only way you can get an idea is to base it on similar film in that genre. I just showed you that at best you can expect a 40% chance of success, but there is certainly no guarantee that these will be bankable franchises (especially Wonder Woman). In my opinion, the only chance that Green Lantern has of making it is if it has something that would draw science fiction/fantasy fans along with those who liked the comics. Make it along the lines of a Star Wars and it might have a chance at being a 3 film franchise. Wonder Woman's best shot is in an ensemble film like Justice League. Outside of that it could go the way of all the other female superheroine films.

How hard are things for you to understand? Yes, The Incredible Hulk would generally be considered a big budget film, and it was placed in the summer. But RELATIVE to Iron Man, or non-Marvel movies like Indiana Jones or The Dark Knight, it was clearly a second-tier summer movie.

It was a summer block buster film, plain and simple. If it weren't it would have been released in the spring or fall. Let's not try to make up excuses to justify why it didn't meet expectations.

Which is why it avoided Indiana Jones by THREE weeks and debuted after Kung Fu Panda, not before or at the same time, right?:whatever:

These films were still in theaters when the Hulk was released. Moviegoers had the choice to go see them or TIH. That is what competition is all about.

Stop lying about Iron Man being this huge mainstream icon on the level of Spidey or Hulk. The average person may have heard the name but they knew nothing about him. He was never even on a long-running, well-known cartoon like Superfriends, which featured the Leaguers who we're comparing him to.

Iron man was a well known character for decades. That is why he got a cartoon of his own and not Daredevil or Iron Fist. That is not a lie. It is a fact. Just because he wasn't as popular as the Superfriends or Spider-Man doesn't mean he wasn't well known. I don't think you saw that many people asking who he was (even my kids know him) like the were The Punisher.

Right there you're wrong. Iron Man WASN'T as well known as Spider-Man, stop trying to avoid the fact that you're wrong with stupid word games.

I didn't say that I just said that he was well known.

The Superman franchise died after Superman IV, which was considered crap. The Roger Corman Fantastic Four movie was NEVER RELEASED, and rumored to have been made on the cheap solely to secure the copyright. Neither of these are comparable to the Batman movie series, which was an established and living franchise until Batman and Robin flopped.

Not true. It was still alive. It just took 15 years to develop the next film.

We knew the actors involved, and the cast was laughably off. We got leaks about the script. We know of the WB being extremely silent to the point that they don't even bother refuting negative rumors, something they would be inclined to do if those rumors were false and they were really confident in their movie.

We really don't know the exact contents of the scrip, only what they want you to know. Furthermore we do not know how these actors will work out together until we see a film clip or something like that. It really seems like the cast of "Watchmen" are working out with fans even though they are not prominent actors. Carla Gugino is the only actress that I could recognize right away.

LOL. You can't just let go of the fact that I don't have to respect any director just because, and that you still haven't given me a reason to.

That's because it won't make a difference.

[dnno1]

How well known to do think he was? IM didn't have the same exposure as Hulk or the X-men had, either.

Last I checked he had 8 titles selling at the same time. If he wasn't that well known that wouldn't be happeing. The character is recognizable by many just from his appearance. I don't know what you are talking about.

WW is well known, too. Most people don't know a single thing about her just what she looks like and most think all there is to her franchise is what Linda Carter 's tv show showed them which WB has not done much to rectify.

That should be telling you something shouldn't it?

I notice you didn't disagree that the public don't have a clue about who his no.1 villain is. How can the public know a super-hero very well when they don't even know that?

Because that is not a necessary condition for being well known and recognizable. Your number 1 villian is a volitile thing and could change just as the wind changes direction. Spiderman's number 1 villian was the green gargoyle at one time, although many will tell you that it is now (although agueably) that it is Venom. I think it is more important here that the audience recognize the main character first since the villian could be a variable in future films.

Most people recognized Iron Man from an old Ozzie song not the comic book character before the movie.

Knowing a character's name doesn't guarantee success. It's merely a stepping stone to build from. IM managed to do that since the film was good but many haven't.

A statement not worth arguing, but the fact does remaing that people did make the association with the two (the song and the character). As far as name recognition, it is more than that. People also can associate the name with his appearance as well and that is very important.

Bad analogy. All you need to know about coke is that it's a drink. There is nothing more to it. With franchises like Iron Man they need to know his abilities, origin, enemies, supporting cast etc to care about it.

Once again what is needed is recognition of the name (or the brand) and the image or appearance (of the product). That is the most important since the interest in the story behind it will come if someone is willing to tell it.


I disagree. Blade and Hellboy were less recognizable to the public then IM was and they still did well.

Yes but they had to support those films with regognizable actors (Snipes and Perlman) and Hellboy was an ensemble film at that (so did Blade in it's third eddition of the franchise). I am not going to say that there are other ways to make a film successful, but being an icon is more than half the battle.

Could you be more precise which what you're getting at here? What do you mean by "promoting"? Films? cartoons? Merchandise?

Watch JLU. It shows a lot of characters in the DCU, which are more then 57, and there are far more in the super-hero comic books they didn't show. I'm not even touching the non-super-hero imprints DC has. They have hundreds of those, too.

http://superherouniverse.com/superheroes/images/newdc-logo.jpg

What I am talking about is what they promote publicly as brands for the company. We already know that the flagship characters are Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, but outside of that it is the big 7 of the Justice League. Even though JLU tried to feature other DC heroes, the show had better ratings with the big 7, and they wound up having more episodes with them in it in some way rather than not. As for the 57 brands, that comes from what was published a few years ago in Time-Warner's annual report for DC.

[ClarkLuther55]

Look you don't segregate statistical data just so that it only shows what you want to see. That's what is called manipulating the facts. Only discussing the most successful films of the bunch is not really descriptive of what really went on in the industry to get where they are now. I don't know how many times I have to say that.

You also don't put in movies that came out in different decades, were made with no budget, went direct-to-video, or starred a cast of nobodies when discussing the prospects of big budget solo movies for League members like Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, or Flash. That's what is called "a stupid comparison.":whatever:

Amazon.com owns IMDb,

WHOA GOOD POINT!!!

You continue to shock me with the downright wacky crap you say. Amazon is a shopping website, people go there to SHOP. Very few people go there to actually post reviews; the handful who do are pretty much already fanboys of the product in question. You only get one side of the story from an insignificant amount of people...therefore it is retarded to use a few Amazon.com user reviews to argue that a critical and box office flop like freaking Ultraviolet was considered a good move, which you have done.

IMDB typically has thousands, if not tens or a hundred thousand user reviews for movies that see a wide release. There are good as well as bad reviews. Therefore, IMDB can give a better idea of what people actually think.

I don't trust anything that comes from the makers of Fox News.

More wacky bizarro logic from you. Are you saying that Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Fox, therefore you don't trust it? When the HELL did politics figure into this? I don't like Fox News either...but that has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about. Rotten Tomatoes basically tallies up reviews from hundreds of prominent internet and newspaper critics, LINKING to each of their reviews. What you see on RT is what was actually reviewed.

That doesn't matter, that film is still part of the genre

I'm just going to say it. Only an absolute moron would think that Love and Plutonium fits into the same category as Batman Begins, Spider-Man or proposed big budget movies with Green Lantern or Flash. Only someone who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about would think that Love and Freaking Plutonium can figure into an analysis of how successful a big budget Wonder Woman would be.

Only a dishonest punk would call someone "ignorant" or "narrow minded" for not having heard of a low-budget, never-was movie like Love and Plutonium.:whatever:

I don't think I need to and you should see the number of folks on my side of the screen that are rolling on the floor over your erroneous comments.

Wow, you really are deluded. Please, for YOUR sake, just stop embarrassing yourself. You're the guy who has in the past claimed that

-The classic Wonder Woman costume that shows up in CARTOONS is an R-rating risk (and I'm sure it is, when Joker can mutilate people and get a PG-13:whatever:)

-A grand total of 25 or some other ridiculously insignificant number of horny fanboy user reviews of Ultraviolet on Amazon.com shows that the movie is well regarded.

-Moviegoer polls about their GENERAL satisfaction level over a period of several years somehow represents their opinion on one specific movie.

-CINO was a good movie.

-People are "ignorant" for not having heard of such blockbuster movies as Love and Plutonium or The Sidekick.

You said all of these things, not me. I can dig up the links too, for anyone who wants to see.

Outside of the total crazies (religious whackjobs, white supremacists), you may be the dimmest and most out-of-touch person I've ever talked to on the internet. Not because you disagree with me, but because you say things that are just so damn wacky, which couldn't have come from any logical thought process.

The MPAA states that %60 of films made never make their money back, so it isn't that hard a thing to do. If you are going to figure out that statistic yourself you need to include the entire population of that genre or all of the films made,

NO, you compare the chances of a WW, GL, or Flash film to other movies with similar traits, such as

-based on a known comic
-coming out in the same time period (the recent superhero boom)
-big budget
-summer debut

Movies with those traits have almost ALL been successful. Only in your BS analysis which throws things off with direct-to-video garbage do things look worse.

It was a summer block buster film, plain and simple. If it weren't it would have been released in the spring or fall. Let's not try to make up excuses to justify why it didn't meet expectations.

Oh look, the broken record, wall-of-ignorance debating "tactic." If you have a problem with one of my points, then deal with it. Repeating your initial assertion again and again doesn't mean you win.

AGAIN, who here thinks that The Incredible Hulk 2008 with Edward Norton received anywhere near the marketing and publicity as Iron Man, Indiana Jones, or The Dark Knight?

These films were still in theaters when the Hulk was released. Moviegoers had the choice to go see them or TIH. That is what competition is all about.

WOW man. Movies of any kind make the bulk of their money when they first come out. 3 weeks later and even a smash hit film isn't really anything to worry about. Even 1 week later and a movie has already lost a lot of steam.

A movie that comes out nearly a freaking MONTH after Indiana Jones isn't competing with Indiana Jones. Only in Bizarro dnno1 world is it competing.

Iron man was a well known character for decades. That is why he got a cartoon of his own

Yeah that crappy, short-lived cartoon that was syndicated on Sunday instead of being on network TV on Saturday was really something.:whatever:

Just because he wasn't as popular as the Superfriends or Spider-Man doesn't mean he wasn't well known.

Oh, he was known. There were still PLENTY of people who didn't know him, or only knew his name. He was nowhere near the recognition level of Spidey or Hulk. His popularity before the 2008 movie was lower than WW, GL, or Flash, who all got more exposure than him.

Therefore, the 2008 Iron Man movie is evidence that WW, GL, or Flash do not suffer too much from a lack of popularity to be the subject of a hit movie.

Not true. It was still alive. It just took 15 years to develop the next film.

Oh yeah, the Superman franchise starring Christopher Reeve was still alive when there were rumors of Nicholas Cage, a gooey black costume-in-a-can, CIA agent Luthor and gay robots fighting polar bears. Anybody with half a brain knew the franchise was dead, and you're playing word games if you try to argue that it wasn't.

We really don't know the exact contents of the scrip, only what they want you to know. Furthermore we do not know how these actors will work out together until we see a film clip or something like that. It really seems like the cast of "Watchmen" are working out with fans even though they are not prominent actors. Carla Gugino is the only actress that I could recognize right away.

1. Watchmen isn't pandering to the tween crowd.
2. Watchmen doesn't have a cast of people who would look RIDICULOUS as their supposed characters (shady 5'9 punk Superman, Jay Baruchel as the big bad, some college-age kid as Batman).
3. Watchmen released materials to assure the fans, instead of being all hush-hush as if the WB was ashamed and had something to hide.

That's because it won't make a difference.

Except that history shows that it does (Jack Black GL killed, Raimi pressed into including Venom despite not wanting to), and it's obvious that businessmen are where they are by pleasing their customers. Keep crying about the fact that I'm not giving my respect to any old director by default.:whatever:

[Kevin Smith]

AWESOME POST, Kevin Smith... my comments.

Thank you, my brother.

2010 IS THE ONLY CHANCE
- OR 2012... or or 2013. In my ideal world, JLA is shot three-movies at once like LOTR. I can wait a few years if they're going to do it 'right.'

Right on. I'd rather them take their time and get it right then have it be a rushed disaster, so if that means we don't see that for another ten years (yikes!) then so be it. However, I think if they want to, they still could get the film made by 2010 without it being "rushed". I just hope they take advantage of the opportunity and get SOME DC Comics film out for that year (long as it isn't a disaster, of course ;) ).

RESPECT THE SOURCE
- Aaaaamen.

NO SECOND STRINGERS
- Cameo second stringers though. And certain characters, namely Batman, Martian Manhunter and Aquaman don't have to take part directly in combat, imho for the film to be awesome.

Cameo when they can. I don't think they should alter the script or the movie to the point where it becomes a fanboy easter egg hunt more than an epic masterpiece. They should work cameos in the film when they can. And I agree, I dn't think Aquaman needs to be featured as prominently as some of the other Leaguers, I'd want to see MM doing a thing or 2, but Batman has to be there somewhere. I know he gets a lot of facetime in his own films, and while I don't think he should have the biggest part per sa, I'd want to see him doing things that he hasn't done in any other film so far. I'd want him to be the comic book Batman, how awesome would it be to have a scene where Bats is fighting _____ (insert villain lackeys here) and he wips his cape over his face, then hurls a flurry of six batarangs, each crashing into an object then exploding - that's something I'd like to see with the JLA Batman. More like the comic book Batman; really smart, lots of tech, very agile - we haven't really seen much of that with the Batman in the other films, IMO.

NO LESS THAN 2 HOURS & 15 MINUTES LONG
- Of course, character development is one thing missing from superhero movies of the past.

HOLY TRINITY
- Yes and No. Part of the problem with the Holy Trin is overexposure... it would not be good if the movie is "about" them and the rest of the league is supporting cast. Its gotta be truly ensemble... that said, it is impossible not to slide the spot light to Supe and Bats... hopefully a talented filmmaker can make Wondy not seem like affirmative action of the Trinity.

I'm with ya 100%.

HAL JORDAN
- As a huge John Stewart fan, even I love the idea of Hal having a scene

I figured that if they were gonna go with Stewart in JLA and do a GL film with Hal, it would be wise to have Hal cameo in JLA.

THE FLASH
- Agreed, though I'd pitch Barry a bit older to set up for Wally in the near future, and I'd also have him die in the climax of the film

I'm gonna have ta part ways with ya here, bud. This will be The Flash's first big screen exposure, and while audiences will likely accept the fact that there is more than one GL (hence the GL Corps), it remains doubtful to me that they will appreciate 2 speedsters running around in the same film for the first time, especially with the six other JLA members. They'd have to do the whole Wally/Kid Flash thing, and the orgin and Kid Flash character would, IMO, just seem really hokey to audiences, they need more time and individual attention to do a story like that then the first JLA film would allow, IMO. I'd prefer and suggest that they save the individual character sub plots like that for exploration in the individual character's films. Set up Barry as Flash in JLA, do an origin story for him in the first Flash film, set up Wally as Kid Flash in Flash 2, and in Flash 3 if ya still feel like it, off Barry and have Kid Flash (Wally) become Flash. :)

NO MORE SUPERMAN THE WUSS
- Yes and no. Superman does hold back, he does have a very powerful moral compass that some people would consider "outdated" and he needs it to keep himself from utterly decimating the planet. I think that should be honored, but it should be shown WHY he has it. The cartoon took a long time to get to that and the movies really didn't let it out much. Let Superman cut loose at the end, a real Dragonball Z-type battle. People will get it 'oh, that's why he's such a punk!'

LOL. Right, but I'm saying Superman, as a character, needs to be tougher than he's been in previous films, namely the Christopher Reeve films and SR. I'm not saying they should let him walk around "cutting loose" all the time (I agree, save the big 'uns for the end), I'm just saying they give him a "no ********" attitude towards things, slightly remniscent of the George Reeves Superman or even the Superman: TAS Superman; have him toss bad guys around like rag dolls, establish that he's a powerhouse and he's hardly trying. Make him "cool". Almost like what he was in his early years (minus the killing).

BATMAN: THE THINKING MAN
- Yes, and yes, and then yes again. I don't know about the technology side, as the Begins series has him with a more realistically limited skillset, but having him be the thinking guy, just being extremely cunning would validate his place on the team for the doubters, and send geekgasms through the toes of Bat-fans.

Right. The tech side needs to be there as well, IMO. If he's responsible for constructing the Watchtower and other JLA devices, they need to establish that in order for it to remain credible.

A VILLAIN WORTHY OF THEIR TALENTS
- I see your villain and raise you a threat. The storyline and threat have to be bigger than any one leaguer could conceivably take on. A foe stronger than Superman, more versatile than GL, not daunted by Flash's speed, not easily outsmarted by Batman, that can require more sophisticated team tactics than 'dogpile on Darkseid.' My fave is Despero for this purpose. There are other villains who could do it, but at the end of the day, if the entire world is not in immediate danger, at least one or two of the leaguers could conceivably take the day off with no worries.

LOL. Right on and good points.

NO ORIGIN, PLEASE
- Origin please. Brief, organic. Once seperate heroes team up from early in the movie and by the time the end credits roll they've chosen a name. I want to be there to see it. Get all the base and gadgets and etc and JLA protocol and teleporters and stuff in the second movie, when it won't detract from developing these characters.

OK, but why does the origin have to be explained? Is it really that necessary? BIG alien threat, seven heroes unite, yada yada yada, 'nuff said, and the chances are that Avengers will be doing that. While very different from JLA, I'm just sayin', X-Men didn't need an origin, I think if they just tell the story "as is", with the team, the base, protocol, etc having already been established it would be fine, they can get on with the story and character development that way without having to spend most of the film explaining everything. This way they can also use characters like John Stewart in the first film, characters who weren't a part of the original League when it first began without disrespecting the source material.

STAPLES OF THE LEAGUE
- Yes, MM. I don't think MM needs to be a combatant. Because of his ability to form the league, and his telepathic and shapeshifting abilities, limiting him from combat, any way you like for the first film, seems like a good idea. Honestly, that's less bruisers to keep up with for plotting the action and pacing and creating a suitable challenge. He can be full power in a sequel, imho. Aquaman too... he only really needs one good scene 'with' the League... and one really glorious moment where people can say, 'oh, Aquaman might be cool...'

Right again, use each member to te best of their abilities. If the story doesn't really call for it, then it doesn't have to be in there. However, I would like to see MM have at least one smackdown scene where he kicks ass. But he does't need as many as some of the other characters, we already have Superman, WW, and GL for that stuff.

CASTING WITH JUSTICE
- With Justice? LOL!

I could nor resist. Sorry. [lol] :D

But yeah, casting is a big thing. Every one of the leaguers and the main villain have to be inspired choices. In an ideal world, Tom Welling and Christian Bale would be Superman and Batman. But honestly, I'd save the big names for the lesser known characters, GL, Flash, Aquaman and Martian Manhunter, and villain... and cast reprisers or 'perfect unknowns' for the Trinity.

Same here. I don't think Flash necessarily needs a really big name either, but if they can get someone who fits the part, unknown or not, I'm fine with it. Same goes for most the other characters.

GET PEOPLE WHO GIVE A DAMN
- Please, yes.

THEY HAVE TO LOOK LIKE THE JLA
- Yes please.

I think Watchmen (sans the nipples on Ozymandias' suit) has proved that the comic book suits can work on film if done right.

IMPRESSIVE. MOST IMPRESSIVE
- The hard part... doing something impressive that feels impressive instead of hokey and corny. How big a thing can superman lift before it seems ridiculous? A jet? A planetoid? The Moon? It needs to be done, but, imho, the hardest part, especially because these individuals have such incredible abilities and have taken on such insane feats in the comics.

Just be consistent. Don't go in with an attitude that "Superman can lift ANYTHING" because he can't, and be consistent with his (and the other leaguers) abilities; if Superman can lift a plane in one scene, he shouldn't be grunting when he picks up a car - you get the picture.

TEAM SCORE
- Clearly. In my perfect world, the individual scores of the film involve rifts on previous themes. The Wonder Woman theme song chords and resonance in Diana's Theme when she first appears. The Batman TAS orchestral chant (Bum, bum, bum-bum!) as part of his theme. The Classic Williams Score playing for Superman's triumphant... triumph.

That would be great.

NOT ANOTHER CARTOON
- So right.

AN AMERICAN NAME
- Awesome compromise.

DON'T LISTEN TO THE HATERS
- You right.

Thank you, my brother. :D


My Own thoughts, even though you covered everyting:

WONDER WOMAN
This is the one hero I would love to have a solo movie before a JL movie, since she's been out of the public eye for so very long. She has to be incredible, not the den mother stereotype, not the "badass" pointless plotless chick Hollywood has been taunting us with for the past few years (not that she shouldn't have that one badass moment), but fully realized warrior woman. Model her on Ripley if you have to... then cast Sigourney Weaver if you lack that much imagination to create a well developed growing female character, but make Wonder Woman worthy to stand between Batman and Superman. Make her a leader. Batman is the brains. Superman is the heart. Wonder Woman is the soul... she's the one who verbalizes it, speaks for them, she's the one who finds the compromise... she's the one who the team looks to in their worst conflicts.

Right on, but on top of all that, her views also sometimes conflict with Superman and Batmans's, she is willing to kill, she's a peace loving warrior (if there is such a thing lol).

REALISM DOESN'T MEAN GRITTY (OR REALISTIC)
A lot of times, people get hung up on realism and forget that anything that flows organically has a feeling of realism. If Superman's abilities and origin remain consistent throughout the film, it doesn't matter if he catches a plane... Superman now has realism.

:applaud Couldn't have said it better myself. :)

LEAVE CLICHES AT THE DOOR
I know it's classic DC, I know how we love the silver age, but give me a twist... other than one of my favorite characters is secretly EVIL (I'm looking at you Max Lord)... make fun of some superhero cliches a bit even while going balls to the wall in classic superhero action. Be a smart movie, please. And don't just put stuff int he movie as an excuse to get something else in... everything has to be cohesive.

I agree. It is important that it's a smart film. Thanks for the great post. :)

[The Major]

Kevin:

The X-men didn't need an origin because they are all identical. They were born a mutant. That's it. No furthur explanation necessary.

Each Leaguer has incredibly different origins, with few exceptions. With 99% of them the public has no idea what it is. They can't get into the specifics of their origins with JLA or they risk it taking over the plot.

The X-men were always a team from the start. The JLA are several unique heroes banding together with their own solo franchises.

They should show Superman's weaknesses more, too. His own rogues gallery and DCU have plenty of super-villains with physical fights, powers and technology/magic etc that can hurt him in various ways without resorting to Krytonite or using Lois as a hostage. The films have barely dealt with that.

[Dark Knight]

Tellin ya...Zack Snyder should be the man to direct a JL film.

Most of us will know this for sure after Watchmen. :woot:

[Jake Cassidy]

I think they could do the origins like in Alex Ross's "Secret Origins" book. Just a short introduction to the characters. Than move on to the good stuff.

Yes, Dark Knight, Snyder for JLA. We got it. :whatever:



























(I agree with you completely) :cwink: :woot:

[Jake Cassidy]

Kevin:

I love your idea to have Despero as the villain. In the comics he's taken out 2 full JL teams and he took down Superman and Martian Manhunter (the 2 most powerful) without breaking a sweat. He's incredibly powerful and dangerous. I also like how he's not a specific villain for a specific hero like Batman/Joker, Superman/Lex, Green Lantern/Sinestro, etc.. He's a Justice League villain.

[Webhead2006]

yea very good points.

[The Major]

I think they could do the origins like in Alex Ross's "Secret Origins" book. Just a short introduction to the characters. Than move on to the good stuff.

Yes, Dark Knight, Snyder for JLA. We got it. :whatever:



























(I agree with you completely) :cwink: :woot:

That is a good idea.

They would have to do a lot of editing to get the key scenes for each characters. Even if there are five of them it'd take a decent amount of time to get that in the credit sequence. I'm sure it can be done, though.

[Webhead2006]

Yea doing origins as drawings/or what they did in TIH would be a cool way to show gl/ww/flash/aquaman origins out of the way.

[Jake Cassidy]

That is a good idea.

They would have to do a lot of editing to get the key scenes for each characters. Even if there are five of them it'd take a decent amount of time to get that in the credit sequence. I'm sure it can be done, though.

They won't have to do Batman's and Superman's origins. Everyone already knows them, to a degree.

[Webhead2006]

Yea supes/bats dont really need them explained.

[dnno1]

You also don't put in movies that came out in different decades, were made with no budget, went direct-to-video, or starred a cast of nobodies when discussing the prospects of big budget solo movies for League members like Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, or Flash. That's what is called "a stupid comparison.":whatever:

Why not? Bryan Singer certainly considered the fact that there were four other Superman films written over the course of 30 years or more when he started "Superman Returns". He looked at both the good and the bad parts about the franchise and tried to emulate the strong points by respecting the work done by Richard Donner (not Richard Lester). Low budget films should be considered as well. Like I had mentioned before, if you look at trends on films, you will see that a good number of horror films are done on a relatively low budget and wind up being profitable. If you want to write/direct a superhero film in that style that might be a way to go ("Darkman" is a perfect example of that). Films that go DTV can tell you either of two things: the film was not good enough to market in (American) theaters (ala "The Punisher" '89) or it may be more profitable to marketing to consumers for home viewing (ala the current animated DTV's). You are assuming that characters like Wonder Woman, Flash, and Green Lantern are big budget franchises, when they can not be compared to the likes of Spider-Man, Superman, or Batman. Remember, Wonder Woman saw a TV series that lasted 3 years on two different networks on the merits of T&A (and has not been able to repeat such success in 30 years), the flash did not even complete a season on TV (and they tried to model him as a dark character), and Green Lantern has restarted at least 4 times in the comics and has no TV series to claim his own. That's a lot to overcome and I wouldn't say their potential for being big budget franchises is all that good based on that history.

WHOA GOOD POINT!!!

You continue to shock me with the downright wacky crap you say. Amazon is a shopping website, people go there to SHOP. Very few people go there to actually post reviews; the handful who do are pretty much already fanboys of the product in question. You only get one side of the story from an insignificant amount of people...therefore it is retarded to use a few Amazon.com user reviews to argue that a critical and box office flop like freaking Ultraviolet was considered a good move, which you have done.

You know, one thing that merchandising retailers do very well is take statistics. That is all part of marketing and is a necessary evil. Once again, I would tend to trust them more than Rotten Tomatoes, which is more like reading your horoscope than anything else.

IMDB typically has thousands, if not tens or a hundred thousand user reviews for movies that see a wide release. There are good as well as bad reviews. Therefore, IMDB can give a better idea of what people actually think.

I may have mentioned this before in another thread, but just because they have a large number of reviews or large sample sizes for their statistical data does not imply that their data is any good nor accurate. People are free to write as many reviews on a subject as they like and the site is subject to influence or persuasion via viral marketing. That is why some of the data the I have seen there is skewed.


More wacky bizarro logic from you. Are you saying that Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Fox, therefore you don't trust it?

No I am saying that Rotten Tomatoes is owned by the makers of Fox News, and I don't trust it for that reason (but not only that reason).

When the HELL did politics figure into this?

It doesn't. Fox News is a NEWS outfit that is owned by News Corp (i.e. Rupert Murdoch). So is Rotten Tomatoes and MySpace. I don't rather like it when most of the media that I see is controlled by one person (that could be dangerous), and that is why I won't patronize it. It is not necessarily political.

I don't like Fox News either...but that has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about. Rotten Tomatoes basically tallies up reviews from hundreds of prominent internet and newspaper critics, LINKING to each of their reviews. What you see on RT is what was actually reviewed.

Not necessarily. If you look at the site for the reviews on TDK you would have seen that it had a 98% (fresh) score. If you would have read the reviews from the critics that gave it a rotten score you would have see their reviews actually said that the film was good an that they just didn't think it was Oscar material. That to me doesn't mean that it was a rotten review and hence the fallacy of their rating system.

I'm just going to say it. Only an absolute moron would think that Love and Plutonium fits into the same category as Batman Begins, Spider-Man or proposed big budget movies with Green Lantern or Flash. Only someone who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about would think that Love and Freaking Plutonium can figure into an analysis of how successful a big budget Wonder Woman would be.

That all depends on what category you are talking about. I am talking about superhero genre films, of which Wonder Woman, Flash, and Green Lantern would fit into. If it is big budget blockbuster films, there is noting to indicate that they would fall into the same category as the Batman, Superman, or Spider-Man franchises. You know, no data to support the claim?

Only a dishonest punk would call someone "ignorant" or "narrow minded" for not having heard of a low-budget, never-was movie like Love and Plutonium.:whatever:

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. It just means that you don't know about something or maybe don't even care.

Wow, you really are deluded. Please, for YOUR sake, just stop embarrassing yourself. You're the guy who has in the past claimed that

-The classic Wonder Woman costume that shows up in CARTOONS is an R-rating risk (and I'm sure it is, when Joker can mutilate people and get a PG-13:whatever:)

-A grand total of 25 or some other ridiculously insignificant number of horny fanboy user reviews of Ultraviolet on Amazon.com shows that the movie is well regarded.

-Moviegoer polls about their GENERAL satisfaction level over a period of several years somehow represents their opinion on one specific movie.

-CINO was a good movie.

-People are "ignorant" for not having heard of such blockbuster movies as Love and Plutonium or The Sidekick.

You said all of these things, not me. I can dig up the links too, for anyone who wants to see.

Outside of the total crazies (religious whackjobs, white supremacists), you may be the dimmest and most out-of-touch person I've ever talked to on the internet. Not because you disagree with me, but because you say things that are just so damn wacky, which couldn't have come from any logical thought process.

Yep, that would be correct -- except I said that you were ignorant. I would think that over the three years or more that I have been posting at this site and others I would have earned some respect from a lot of folks. I don't think I have been necessarily wrong and I have had a point. The mere fact that there is only one other person carrying on these lengthy discussions opposing me must mean something.

NO, you compare the chances of a WW, GL, or Flash film to other movies with similar traits, such as

-based on a known comic
-coming out in the same time period (the recent superhero boom)
-big budget
-summer debut

I have to disagree with these premises. There are films that can be considered superhero genre that have been good enough to be successful that have not been based on a comic ("The Incredibles"), not not came out in the same time period ("Superman: The Movie" or "Batman" '89), were not big budget ("Darkman"), nor had a summer debut ("300") that could be used as comparisons. Nobody who is anybody has stated when the release dates for these films you just mentioned will be and that will all depend on what type of competition they will face at the time of their release among other factors. Once again you are painting a pretty picture so as to make these films look like a slam dunk when in actuality they are on the bubble.

Movies with those traits have almost ALL been successful. Only in your BS analysis which throws things off with direct-to-video garbage do things look worse.

That's the key: almost. And what are we looking at here? The Spider-Man films (all released before summer), The X-men films. Batman, Iron-man, and maybe Superman? These are the top tier characters that either side has. What we have left are definitely second tier and there are no garantees that they will be as successful (you can only be 40% certain about that unless you have some better information on it).

Oh look, the broken record, wall-of-ignorance debating "tactic." If you have a problem with one of my points, then deal with it. Repeating your initial assertion again and again doesn't mean you win.

AGAIN, who here thinks that The Incredible Hulk 2008 with Edward Norton received anywhere near the marketing and publicity as Iron Man, Indiana Jones, or The Dark Knight?

If you ask me he had more than Iron-Man since there were a lot of his toys in stores (Hulk hands, action figures, et. al.), a TV show that was re-released to home video, a number of decent trailers and promotional interviews, and, although he did not have a Superbowl spot on TV like Iron Man, did get a TV spot for the NBA playoffs. I can't say the same for Indiana Jones or TDK (I didn't like their trailers as much). All of this doesn't change the fact that the film was released right at the heart of the summer blockbuster season and hence drives me to the conclusion that Marvel Entertainment intended this film to be a summer tent-pole film.

WOW man. Movies of any kind make the bulk of their money when they first come out. 3 weeks later and even a smash hit film isn't really anything to worry about. Even 1 week later and a movie has already lost a lot of steam.

As I read this I think about the returns on "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope" (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=starwars4.htm). That film only made $1.5 million in its first week (a late May start). It's returns steadily increased each week up to the July 4th weekend where it spiked at almost $7.5 million and ranged between 5 to 8 million into late September. The film's box office returns started to loose steam in December of that year (1977). This is jut proof that not all movies of any kind perform as you described. "The Incredible Hulk" was a disappointment because it was intended to be a summer blockbuster film but wound up not being anymore popular than its predecessor ("The Hulk").


A movie that comes out nearly a freaking MONTH after Indiana Jones isn't competing with Indiana Jones. Only in Bizarro dnno1 world is it competing.

Whenever I see those films in the top ten together at any given time, somebody is comparing them and that implies a competition.

Yeah that crappy, short-lived cartoon that was syndicated on Sunday instead of being on network TV on Saturday was really something.:whatever:

It's funny how I remember it though (as well as the 1960's one). Come to think of it, Porky Pig and Tennessee Tuxedo had shows on Sundays back in the day.


Oh, he was known...

Then there is nothing else to discuss about it then. He was known enough or had people intrested to make over a half billion dollars at the box office.

Therefore, the 2008 Iron Man movie is evidence that WW, GL, or Flash do not suffer too much from a lack of popularity to be the subject of a hit movie.

I don't think these characters are as popular as Iron-Man as to why they do not have projects green-lit while they are already talking about a second Iron-Man film.

Oh yeah, the Superman franchise starring Christopher Reeve was still alive when there were rumors of Nicholas Cage, a gooey black costume-in-a-can, CIA agent Luthor and gay robots fighting polar bears. Anybody with half a brain knew the franchise was dead, and you're playing word games if you try to argue that it wasn't.

No, I said the Superman franchise was still alive. The fact that there was someone (Kevin Smith and others) writing screenplays, directors working on the development, and/or an actor tied to the filmk is "proof of life".

1. Watchmen isn't pandering to the tween crowd.
2. Watchmen doesn't have a cast of people who would look RIDICULOUS as their supposed characters (shady 5'9 punk Superman, Jay Baruchel as the big bad, some college-age kid as Batman).
3. Watchmen released materials to assure the fans, instead of being all hush-hush as if the WB was ashamed and had something to hide.

I don't see how your first two points counter anything I had written (your second point is more opinionated than anything else). As for your third point, the producers never got far enough with the project to show us anything worth assuring outside of the cast and nay sayers were against it from the day it was conceived. They selfishly didn't want it to interfere with the existing Nolan and Singer projects.

Except that history shows that it does (Jack Black GL killed, Raimi pressed into including Venom despite not wanting to), and it's obvious that businessmen are where they are by pleasing their customers. Keep crying about the fact that I'm not giving my respect to any old director by default.:whatever:

Just because a few folks on SHH and Bluetights.net complained about it doesn't mean that they can claim victory over that. Didn't you consider the fact that the suits didn't like the pitch even with Jack Black in the lead role and that they might have had a bigger vision for the project?

[The Major]

Remember, Wonder Woman saw a TV series that lasted 3 years on two different networks on the merits of T&A (and has not been able to repeat such success in 30 years), the flash did not even complete a season on TV (and they tried to model him as a dark character), and Green Lantern has restarted at least 4 times in the comics and has no TV series to claim his own. That's a lot to overcome and I wouldn't say their potential for being big budget franchises is all that good based on that history.

Wasn't the Linda Carter WW a hit for WB?

You're right that it was a tv show which relied on T & A to sell but it did give the WW a foundation to build off in the public's consciousness.

There's also the fact that WW always had more potential then what that tv show was revealing. The budget restrictions and the era where camp was "in" kept it from reaching its potential in live action. WB doesn't have to deal with those restrictions anymore.

WB has never actually shown the real WW to the public until recently. JLU got the ball rolling. It wasn't perfect but it proved she could still be popular and relevant to the public.

She's finally getting her own solo project with the animated dvd. It's been 20 years since WB gave WW that treatment as a solo character.

It really shouldn't have taken that long, either. While batman and Superman got numerous live action shows and cartoon she's been MIA. No wonder it's going to be tougher for the public to get to know her with that. Hopefully things will be looking up for the WW franchise in those mediums in the future.

GL's concept made it impossible for a tv show to be made of it. A cartoon would have been much more difficult to execute then Superman or Batman. Just because a comic franchise doesn't have a cartoon or tv show doesn't mean it can't be successful. Many, many franchises don't get that oppotunity whether it be from companies not know they exist, they are busy with adapting something else which has a history of success in other mediums or their resources are limited. It could be all of the above.

A comic series relaunch means nothing. Especially when that franchise has several leads which rotate as who the star is in it. Comics routinely get a new #1 since they sell better even when the series isn't failing in sales. If a new character is taking over the mantle usually the title is restarted, as well. Then there's creative "reboots" like Heroes Reborn. They relaunch when another character can take over the title like GL though sometimes they don't do this. A comic failing in the stands doesn't mean it cant be a successful film, either. If the concept is great and the film makers or people making a cartoon or tv show have the skills to make a good version the public can like it can succeed.

Franchises like Hellboy don't even have an ongoing, it's just mini-series so it gets lots of #1's. Iron Man has had many restarts in the comics then GL, if not more, and that didn't stop its movie from being successful.

That's the key: almost. And what are we looking at here? The Spider-Man films (all released before summer), The X-men films. Batman, Iron-man, and maybe Superman?These are the top tier characters that either side has.

Iron Man and X-men only became top tier after the movies, not before. I'd place X-men slightly above IM in popularity and familiarity due to its cartoon series which did much better.


What we have left are definitely second tier and there are no garantees that they will be as successful (you can only be 40% certain about that unless you have some better information on it).

Being a second tier franchise doesn't mean it'll automatically fail or succeed. It can come down to how a business treats the franchise in other mediums since it will affect what the public knows or sees it as and/or delivering a movie adaption the pubic will enjoy.

Outside of comics no-one knew Blade, 300 and V For Vendetta existed and they still did well in film since it was given a good introductions with the movies.

There are no guarantees in making movies. Sure, they can see some things and lessen the odds but in the end they're still speculating how a film will do.

They can improve their odds by working with their other divisions like animation, video-games and tv to get the public interested before launching the films. Thankfully WB has started doing this with lesser comic franchises more now then keeping it just for Superman and Batman.

[dnno1]

Wasn't the Linda Carter WW a hit for WB?

You're right that it was a tv show which relied on T & A to sell but it did give the WW a foundation to build off in the public's consciousness.

Although the series had decent ratings (top 25 or so) it didn't get picked up for a second season by the American Broadcasting Company. The Columbia Brodcasting Company (CBS) picked it up, but after two seasons suspended it indefinitely in lieu of sit-com programing. I don't know how much of a foundation it left in the minds of the public since there wasn't enough of an uproar after the suspension of the series to have it either continued on, restarted, or even picked up by another network.

There's also the fact that WW always had more potential then what that tv show was revealing. The budget restrictions and the era kept it from reaching its potential in live action. WB doesn't have to deal with those restrictions anymore.

WB has never actually shown the real WW to the public until recently. JLU got the ball rolling. It wasn't perfect but it proved she could still be popular and relevant to the public.

Certainly in hindsight after seeing the JLU version of Wonder Woman and how she is currently portrayed in the comics we can say that she had more potential, but considering the era that the TV series was released in it should be understood that that potential wasn't going to be exploited. In the 1970's the kind of violence on television that we are accustomed today was under a lot of scrutiny so there was very little kicking and punching seen in the series. I don't know so much that it was the budget restrictions that prevented the so called reaching of the full potential for the series, but rather that the technology to perform the types of stunts and feats that we were seeing (and are still seeing) in the comics were not there. It was only two years after the Wonder Woman series started that Superman was flying without a blue screened diving board in theaters.


She's finally getting her own solo project with the animated dvd. It's been 20 years since WB gave WW that treatment as a solo character.

Actually it's closer to 30. The the TV series ended in 1979 and the solo animated DTV won't be released until early 2009.

It really shouldn't have taken that long, either. While batman and Superman got numerous live action shows and cartoon she's been MIA. No wonder it's going to be tougher for the public to get to know her with that. Hopefully things will be looking up for the WW franchise in those mediums.

I think they tried to start up a series around the time that Xena was running (Julie Strain even had a shot at the role). That fell through the cracks. Let's face it. Wonder Woman is not Superman or Batman. That is part of why she hasn't been able to get he own solo projects in the last 30 years.

GL's concept made it impossible for a tv show to be made of it. A cartoon would have been much more difficult to execute then Superman or Batman. Just because a comic franchise doesn't have a cartoon or tv show doesn't mena it can't be successful. Many, many franchises don't get that oppotunity whether it be from companies not know they exist, they are busy with adapting something else which has a history of success in other mediums or their resources are limited. It could be all of the above.

That's not why he didn't get a TV show. It was because he was not Superman or Batman either (not popular enough) among other things. In any case in the last 30 years we did get these clips of him:

E_nKnnkzeLc

xnNmQOkIw80

A comic series relaunch means nothing. Especially when that franchise has several leads in it. Comics routinely get a new #1 since they sell better even when the series isn't failing in sales. If a new character is taking over the mantle usually the title is restarted, as well. Then there's creative "reboots" like Heroes Reborn.

That's just it. If the character were popular (or if they would have tried harder to make him so) they wouldn't have reinvented him three different times over the last 50 years. They only did that once to Batman and I don't recall that ever happening to Superman. This is excluding any reinterpretations of the characters in the way of powering them down or making them darker but rather changing the character physically.

Franchises like Hellboy don't even have an ongoing, it's just mini-series so it gets lots of #1's. Iron Man has had many restarts in the comics, if not more, then GL and that didn't stop its movie from being successful.

And you can see it's reception at the box office. The only reason why the project is getting by is because it is being produced on a low budget.

Iron Man and X-men only became top tier after the movies, not before. I'd place X-men slightly above IM in popularity and familiarity due to its cartoon series which did much better.

X-Men was the hottest selling comic when I was in high school back in the late 1970's and Iron Man has been in at least three titles since then (he is in at least 8 now). I don't know exactly what you mean by them not being top tier, because they sure are selling like they are.

Being a second tier franchise doesn't mean it'll automatically fail. It comes down to how a business treats the franchise in other mediums since it will affect what the pubic knows or sees it as. Outside of comics no-one knew Blade existed it still did well in film since it was given a good introduction with the movie.

And if it wasn't for Wesly Snipes, and a low budget (it was a monster flick, what do you expect?) I doub't if it would have been a franchise.

There are no guarantees in making movies. Sure, they can see some things and lessen the odds but in the end they're still speculating how a film will do.

You got that right.

They can improve their odds by working with their other divisions like animation, video-games and tv before launching the films. Thankfully WB has started doing this more then keeping it for Superman and Batman.

I think that is what they have been doing all along.

[ClarkLuther55]

Why not? Bryan Singer certainly considered the fact that there were four other Superman films written over the course of 30 years or more when he started "Superman Returns".

1. Bryan Singer has been proven to be hopelessly devoted to the Donner movies. They were practically the only things he looked to when making Superman Returns.

2. Using the Donner Superman movies (big budget blockbusters using a known character) is nowhere near as out there as what you did, using the direct-to-video Captain America, or other direct-to-video, no-budget movies that nobody ever heard of like freaking Sidekick and Love and Plutonium.

Low budget films should be considered as well.

No, they shouldn't. A big budget Green Lantern movie will blow away freaking LOVE AND PLUTONIUM simply by coming out in the summer and having actual advertising behind it.

Like I had mentioned before, if you look at trends on films, you will see that a good number of horror films are done on a relatively low budget and wind up being profitable.

"Profitable" is relative. The horror movies that are considered mainstream hits are released in theaters, an all-important fact that can't be said for nothing movies like LOVE AND PLUTONIUM. You can't argue this.

You are assuming that characters like Wonder Woman, Flash, and Green Lantern are big budget franchises, when they can not be compared to the likes of Spider-Man, Superman, or Batman.

They compare pretty damn well to Iron Man. Something which I've said over and over again but can't seem to get through your thick skull.

Remember, Wonder Woman saw a TV series that lasted 3 years on two different networks on the merits of T&A (and has not been able to repeat such success in 30 years), the flash did not even complete a season on TV (and they tried to model him as a dark character), and Green Lantern has restarted at least 4 times in the comics and has no TV series to claim his own. That's a lot to overcome and I wouldn't say their potential for being big budget franchises is all that good based on that history.

As opposed to Iron Man, who got one short-lived, poorly received syndicated series in the 90s that nobody remembers.

You know, one thing that merchandising retailers do very well is take statistics. That is all part of marketing and is a necessary evil. Once again, I would tend to trust them more than Rotten Tomatoes, which is more like reading your horoscope than anything else.

Wow, how out there can you be? Love and Plutonium being lumped into a GENERAL CATEGORY of superhero movies in Amazon.com based on subject matter is common sense, not the result of careful statistical research by "merchandising retailers." :whatever:

You honestly scare me with the crazy crap that you say.

I may have mentioned this before in another thread, but just because they have a large number of reviews or large sample sizes for their statistical data does not imply that their data is any good nor accurate. People are free to write as many reviews on a subject as they like and the site is subject to influence or persuasion via viral marketing. That is why some of the data the I have seen there is skewed.

More bizarro talk from you.

You need to register for an account in order to vote on a numerical rating or write a review. Each account only gets to vote ONCE. Of course someone could make multiple accounts...but it's a time consuming process and it's ridiculous to suggest that movies with THOUSANDS of votes saying it's crap is the result of some people making craploads of duplicate accounts.

And any bias you want to claim on IMDB...is a far bigger force on Amazon.com, where the stupidly a small sample size of 25 reviews can easily be thrown off by the handful of horny fanboys who like to get off to Ultraviolet.

I've been through this with you, before. Yet each time you act like you act like it never happened. Either you aren't reading, or you just don't comprehend.

No I am saying that Rotten Tomatoes is owned by the makers of Fox News, and I don't trust it for that reason (but not only that reason)

It doesn't. Fox News is a NEWS outfit that is owned by News Corp (i.e. Rupert Murdoch). So is Rotten Tomatoes and MySpace. I don't rather like it when most of the media that I see is controlled by one person (that could be dangerous), and that is why I won't patronize it. It is not necessarily political.

So stupid. Rupert Murdoch likely doesn't know a damn thing about the goings on at Rotten Tomatoes, or many other parts of his corporate empire. Nothing as large as News Corp is controlled by one man, especially the freaking movie review site that was started by someone else and only bought later.

Not necessarily. If you look at the site for the reviews on TDK you would have seen that it had a 98% (fresh) score. If you would have read the reviews from the critics that gave it a rotten score you would have see their reviews actually said that the film was good an that they just didn't think it was Oscar material. That to me doesn't mean that it was a rotten review and hence the fallacy of their rating system.

Don't try to pull a fast one on me. I just skimmed through all 13 pages of TDK's reviews on Rotten Tomatoes to confirm your claim, because I've learned that you talk nonsense and don't do your homework when it comes to actually finding evidence to support your claims. When someone calls you on your claims (as I do), they fall apart.

Sure enough, the 14 negative reviews that TDK received on RT all genuinely disliked the movie, with opinions including that it was boring, pretentious, too long, too pessimistic, etc. I don't even recall seeing a negative review that the movie was good but just wasn't Oscar material, as you claimed.

dnno1 = liar

And seriously, nitpicking the exact numbers on TDK at RT (which wouldn't have changed a damn thing, RT still says that the VAST majority of critics liked the movie either way) does NOTHING to discredit it to the level that you want to.

That all depends on what category you are talking about. I am talking about superhero genre films, of which Wonder Woman, Flash, and Green Lantern would fit into. If it is big budget blockbuster films, there is noting to indicate that they would fall into the same category as the Batman, Superman, or Spider-Man franchises. You know, no data to support the claim?

Iron Man. Fantastic Four. Blade. Hulk. All movies that made big money (disappointment is a relative term, and can easily be ascribed to crap like Ang Lee's stupid decisions). All far more similar to WW or Flash than Love and Freaking Plutonium. Your attempt to lump DC's known heroes in with direct-to-video flops is lame and baseless.

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. It just means that you don't know about something or maybe don't even care.

OH PLEASE. I know damn well what you were insinuating, I'm not the mental midget that you are. And I'd like to find a single person who would agree with you that "ignorant" is a fair label for someone who didn't know about Love and Plutonium, a direct-to-video movie starring nobodies, with no advertisement, that nobody saw or remembers.

Yep, that would be correct

So you admit to being a nutcase who thinks that CINO was a good movie, that a sample size of 25 horny fanboy user reviews means jack, or that WW's iconic outfit that shows up on cartoons is an R-rating risk. Thanks.

I would think that over the three years or more that I have been posting at this site and others I would have earned some respect from a lot of folks. I don't think I have been necessarily wrong and I have had a point. The mere fact that there is only one other person carrying on these lengthy discussions opposing me must mean something.

LOL, talking with you is a pain in the ass. You're thick-headed and downright wacky. I HATE responding to you, that's why I only do this once every week on the weekend (and even then, I regret wasting the time). I imagine most other people don't have the time or energy to waste with you.

And I recall quite a few people making fun of you for your opinions on CINO. And others in this very thread disagreeing with your ideas for Justice League.

That's the key: almost. And what are we looking at here? The Spider-Man films (all released before summer), The X-men films. Batman, Iron-man, and maybe Superman?

AGAIN, Fantastic Four (which sucked and STILL made money) and Blade. Iron Man was NOT a top-tier, A-list hero, so stop BSing about that. His public recognition was about the same if not LOWER than the individual League members like WW. Flash, or GL, who were all on Superfriends for years and showed up in multiple other series. Even Daredevil made over $100 million domestic with a February release and horrible critical buzz.

If you ask me he had more than Iron-Man

dnno1 seriously thinks that The Incredible Hulk with Edward Norton received more publicity and marketing than freaking IRON MAN.

Any Hulk hands or other crap he wants to bring up are easily countered by the trailers, news articles, and online coverage that Iron Man got.

Add another entry to the file full of outrageous bizarro claims by dnno1.

As I read this I think about the returns on "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope" (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=starwars4.htm).

The hits just keep coming! I really should compile an official list of dnno1's bizarro claims.

It is a fair statement to say that generally, movies lose steam with subsequent weekends. The reality is that a movie with a 45% drop in its second weekend is considered to have "legs."

Using Star Wars, which took people by surprise 30 years ago and became a cultural phenomenon (i.e., an ANOMALOUS case) doesn't refute that.

Whenever I see those films in the top ten together at any given time, somebody is comparing them and that implies a competition.

So stupid. The "Top Ten" at the box office means jack. Often, movies that debut #2 are thought of to be disappointments or failures. A movie at #5-10 likely isn't even on most people's radars anymore.

Only someone operating on bizarro logic thinks that coming out a month after Indiana Jones means competing with Indiana Jones.:whatever:

It's funny how I remember it though (as well as the 1960's one). Come to think of it, Porky Pig and Tennessee Tuxedo had shows on Sundays back in the day.

YOU remember it. Congrats.:whatever:

Ask any twenty-something nowadays what they thought about the X-Men cartoon in the 90s, and they'll all remember it and probably speak fondly of it. Ask most people what they thought about the 90s Iron Man cartoon and they probably wouldn't know what the hell you're talking about.

Then there is nothing else to discuss about it then. He was known enough or had people intrested to make over a half billion dollars at the box office.

So stupid. There is a WORLD of difference between Iron Man being barely known, and being an A-list icon on par with Superman or Spider-Man, which makes it impossible to compare Iron Man to the likes of Green Lantern or Flash.:whatever:

I don't think these characters are as popular as Iron-Man as to why they do not have projects green-lit while they are already talking about a second Iron-Man film.

MORE bizarro logic. WW, GL, and Flash aren't as popular as Iron Man because they don't have green lit projects from the WB, a studio NOTORIOUS for not being able to develop ANY of their superhero franchises, up to and including Superman?:whatever:

No, I said the Superman franchise was still alive. The fact that there was someone (Kevin Smith and others) writing screenplays, directors working on the development, and/or an actor tied to the filmk is "proof of life".

Someone writing an unused screenplay that had nothing to do with what came before or after, years after the previous Superman movie, and years before Superman Returns is "life" to you? I'm not going to bother with BS semantics like this.


I'm seriously just wasting time debating someone who doesn't comprehend normal human logic.:whatever:

[BH/HHH]

I agree with Kevin Smith here :up:

[protocida]

Kevin Smith, you're completelly right and i firmly believe that's what it's going to happen (Despite de 2010 releasde date) :cwink:

[Evil Twin]

Although the series had decent ratings (top 25 or so) it didn't get picked up for a second season by the American Broadcasting Company. The Columbia Brodcasting Company (CBS) picked it up, but after two seasons suspended it indefinitely in lieu of sit-com programing. I don't know how much of a foundation it left in the minds of the public since there wasn't enough of an uproar after the suspension of the series to have it either continued on, restarted, or even picked up by another network.

WW didn't get picked up because a WWII period setting was very expensive for a show to pull off week after week, despite the ratings. That's why when it was given a second life it was updated to a contemporary period.

There are tons of shows that would like to get three seasons. Heck, Adam West's Batman, despite it's long lasting appeal, only lasted three seasons before burning out.