Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[Cain]

Yeah I don't understand why it's such a difficult thing to comprehend.

[HighFivingMF]

but I don't understand why WW who hasn't been seen live action since the mid 70's can't get a tid bit of exposure or something even in a now cancelled Smallville show. :doh:

Because of legal issues where Wonder Woman and Wonder Girl couldn't appear in things where they weren't the main character. It's since been resolved.

[Docker2.0]

But, that's what we were saying. They're not really meant to do anything differently than WB has. They're just meant to unite all of the DC properties under one banner.

Yeah but I doubt they actually can because again, for all the good Nolan has done, he's also against a shared universe which kind of makes no sense since it's his last Batman film. Plus, Nolan really isn't good for all of DC's characters. But that's just my opinion. I also think the WB suits are way to involved with DCE's day to day operations. They have to give them some leeway kind of like Disney does Marvel. If they don't, they'll lose billions because there are some goldmines they are sitting on. I still think Booster Gold would make a great tv show as well as a Green Arrow show that's done right. Here's hoping CW does it the right way.

[Docker2.0]

Because of legal issues where Wonder Woman and Wonder Girl couldn't appear in things where they weren't the main character. It's since been resolved.

I get that but that is kind of crazy thing to agree to. So the characters are basically collecting dust because they can't play second fiddle even on a tv show episode? That's why my hopes of WW movie doing well are not up very high. The character has been out of the limelight for decades so when they finally decide to bring her out, they are going to have a time trying to make her relevant again.

[CConn]

Yeah but I doubt they actually can because again, for all the good Nolan has done, he's also against a shared universe which kind of makes no sense since it's his last Batman film. Plus, Nolan really isn't good for all of DC's characters. But that's just my opinion. I also think the WB suits are way to involved with DCE's day to day operations. They have to give them some leeway kind of like Disney does Marvel. If they don't, they'll lose billions because there are some goldmines they are sitting on. I still think Booster Gold would make a great tv show as well as a Green Arrow show that's done right. Here's hoping CW does it the right way.
You're still not comprehending it.

[Tobias]

Summer should tell us if WB is shifting strategy a bit.

If no A lister film is announced by then for 2014 then maybe Lobo is WB's 2014 DC film.

It could make sense as a strategy.

Try a few promising B-list characters for a couple years leading up to the Batman relaunch. Skip A-lister films till after Batman and in light of the success or not of the B-listers.

Not saying that will happen. I still have to believe Flash in 2015, WW in 2016 and then the new Batman franchise launched in 2017.

[Docker2.0]

LOL at Lobo being B-list. It's hard to even call him C list. They are taking an obscure character with a complex, campy history and trying to make a movie out of it. Honestly, that's a bigger gamble than a "safe" Flash movie. Flash at least has his audience, Lobo has a small following but even the comic community isn't sold on him. I don't like Lobo as a solo film.

[The Guard]

Still, WB's made a lot of poor decisions when it comes to their DC stable. You'd figure they would be pursuing untried directors, see if they liked a certain DC character, and try to get the next Chris Nolan to revive GL or get WW up and running. Someone needs to slap sense into Robinov for not trying hard enough or looking out of the box... there's more than enough material in DC's vaults to sustain dozens of franchises and spin-offs.

Then perhaps its simply that there isn't enough money to only focus on superhero films.

I think fans are under the impression that WB has a billion dollars free every year to devote to the superhero cause. That's obviously not the case. These movies cost money. Lots and lots of money. WB has an entire slate of movies to consider beyond the DC Comics superheroes. I don't think The Flash, Wonder Woman and Aquaman haven't happened because WB doesn't want to make money. They may well have happened because they simply don't have that kind of money free, or because they can't take the risk with that kind of money based ont he rest of their film slate. It's a bit of a gray area I'm sure. GREEN LANTERN was their first lighter foray into lighter fare, and it essentially failed. That was less than a year ago. It's not unreasonable that this failure would give them pause about moving forward, and how to move forward, but projects are clearly still being worked on. They are still developing superhero TV shows and films. That shows they are interested in using the DC stable of characters.

I don't think WB will get it until the movie comes out, makes a lot of money, and then the light bulb goes off in Robinov's head. A standalone JL film would be a helluva better plan than a Lobo movie for 2014.

You don't honestly think that WB is making LOBO because they just don't get that JLA would be successful, right? They're probably testing the waters again with LOBO, which, as Ultimatehero said, has been in development for a long time, much like they did with JONAH HEX, and is a far less expensive film than a Justice League of solo hero film would be. Hopefully the execution will be better than HEX.

But credit should be given where it's due, Thor and Captain America were extremely ballsy projects that could have easily collapsed on themselves. Thor is difficult to adapt on so many levels, way too many to list, but they did a fantastic job with it.

How is THOR any more difficult to adapt than the average superhero or mythological concept?

Likewise, Captain America was made in an age where society and younger people especially are obsessed with dark, tortured anti-heroes. Marvel Studios took a serious chance investing in those movies and then doing Avengers ahead of time. If you look at the decisions they made involving all those, on paper you'd probably have to say they were terrible decisions but they made it work by providing a quality product.

Except that, with movies like SPIDER-MAN and IRON MAN, Marvel had seen that the heroes didn't have to be dark and serious to be successful. Hinting at an eventual Avengers film isn't really a risk. Moving forward with it after Iron Man and Iron Man 2 was, as Captain America and Thor had not been hits yet, but it was a calculated risk, as the film was to feature Iron Man, which audiences apparently loved.

But there's nothing really terrible on paper about greenlighting a Captain America movie in this era of superhero films. There's nothing terrible about greenlighting a Thor film, or an Avengers movie.

Anyway, cliffs: Marvel Studios is actually a perfect combination of ''safe'' and ''risky'' when it comes to the film making and business ventures. DC, hopefully, can learn from that.

I wouldn't agree with perfect, but they've, thus far, found a decent balance. The DC films that haven't been as "safe" by and large hasn't been as financially successful (WATCHMEN, SUPERMAN RETURNS, and arguably GREEN LANTERN in a sense).

I think people are too hard on Thor and Captain America. They were safe movies but they were intoducing audiences to the characters and their world. If you went to far from the mainstream those characters franchises might never of got off the ground.

No one's asking that CAPTAIN AMERICA and THOR receive no credit. But as films, and as superhero films, they are relatively safe movies. No amount of rationalizing the reasons for this will change that. The content is very straightforward, somewhat predictable, and safe in its character explorations.

Kevin Feige has said now that they have established the characters in the sequels they are going to push the boat out and try some different stuff.

Shane Black has said he wants to make Iron Man 3 a Tom Clancy like Thiller.

Thor 2 looks like it might go more into the mythology realm side of things.

Chris Evans has talked about possibly making Cap 2 a Political thriller.

This would be fantastic. I'll believe it when I see it.

Which is something to note: even if Avengers can be appreciated standalone, the audience still needed to be introduced to the characters, so that they'd actually have a reason to care. Doing a team movie wherein everyone on it has no real GA exposure? Bad idea.

There's nothing that says that an ensemble movies characters have to be introduced separately for audiences to have a reason to care.

Which is why DC needs to do setup movies: the only JLA characters with useful* GA exposure are Batman and Superman. . . and Batman's large Nolan-established fanbase isn't necessarily transferable ( note how many people applaud Dark Knight on the grounds that its more a crime drama than a super hero story ).

Batman is hugely popular. Superman is a very popular, very well known character, with two major films and SMALLVILLE giving it visibility.

And much like Hulk, Captain America and Thor...Wonder Woman, Aquaman, The Flash, and now Green Lantern are fairly well known concepts among general audiences. They do have exposure. Many of them are pop culture icons. Several of them have had shows and animated movies.

Green Lantern was sold on the outer space cop concept. Thor, the fish out of water story. For that reason, Green Lantern was a big disapointment to alot of people.

Green Lantern is a space cop, but the movie was never sold that way. It was never sold as a movie about a space-based police officer. GREEN LANTERN was sold as a superhero origin story for Green Lantern, a movie about a spacebased superhero on Earth. The trailers made this very clear. They didn't lie to people about what was in the film, and they didn't trick anyone either. They showed exactly what its content was, and people got their expectations way, way up based on their own wishes for the franchise.

And THE DARK KNIGHT is a superhero story with crime drama elements. If you think it's a crime drama, then you've been watching some really, really silly and awkwardly executed crime dramas.

Yes, they have. They've rebooted the entire DC Universe, started up a line of a half dozen digital-first comic series, they've produced multiple animated series in GL and Beware the Batman, they're producing multiple live action TV shows like Human Target and the proposed Arrow, they've developed multiple video games in Arkham City, DCU Universe Online, and Lego Batman 2, and in films have produced Watchmen, Jonah Hex, GL, RED and Man of Steel.

Well said. Judging Diane Nelson and her people based on a few years where we've "only" gotten the films we have is just silly. The Avengers characters' films took almost a decade to get from conception to production. More in some cases. Major motion pictures take time to develop.

Yeah but I doubt they actually can because again, for all the good Nolan has done, he's also against a shared universe which kind of makes no sense since it's his last Batman film.

Nolan was against involving his Batman in a shatred universe. He has never said that he himself is against an eventual shared universe concept. He's discussed the possibilities of it before, as recently as Dark Knight production.

The character has been out of the limelight for decades so when they finally decide to bring her out, they are going to have a time trying to make her relevant again.

True. Much like: The Hulk. Captain America. Thor. Iron Man. Spider-Man. And at one point, like Batman and Superman. Audiences have rarely been as familiar with characters as fans are. But they haven't forgotten them either. Not as a culture.

[KingMadness]

Green Lantern ruined it for all of us I'm afraid. I wish DC had its own movie company like Marvel. With WB, now we are gonna have to wait at least 5 years for them to give another A lister a chance. The handling of Green Lantern pains my heart because I'm a huge DC fan.

Green Lantern is the answer to this topic, THIS MOVIE IS WHERE IT WENT WRONG. Instead of being the movie to open up all the doors, Green Lantern locked them tight for half a decade atleast. Breaks my heart man, like I said I'm a huge DC fan, and I could write a 100 page essay on how Green Lantern is such a simple concept to translate to film.

[Tobias]

Green Lantern ruined it for all of us I'm afraid. I wish DC had its own movie company like Marvel. With WB, now we are gonna have to wait at least 5 years for them to give another A lister a chance. The handling of Green Lantern pains my heart because I'm a huge DC fan.

Green Lantern is the answer to this topic, THIS MOVIE IS WHERE IT WENT WRONG. Instead of being the movie to open up all the doors, Green Lantern locked them tight for half a decade atleast. Breaks my heart man, like I said I'm a huge DC fan, and I could write a 100 page essay on how Green Lantern is such a simple concept to translate to film.

I'd actually expand that to say that the combination of SR followed by GL is where it all went wrong. If just one had done well and the other not, WB would be gung-ho to try more DC films. That was not to be.

[Parker Wayne]

I'd actually expand that to say that the combination of SR followed by GL is where it all went wrong. If just one had done well and the other not, WB would be gung-ho to try more DC films. That was not to be.

This. For better or for worse, Batman is the only proven property.

[cloverfan98]

I'd actually expand that to say that the combination of SR followed by GL is where it all went wrong. If just one had done well and the other not, WB would be gung-ho to try more DC films. That was not to be.

Do you guys think DC should do what Marvel did in the late 90's and early 00's where they sold so many rights to so many different film studios? We'd get some pretty uneven films, but hey we would have more than just Superman and Batman films.

[Parker Wayne]

No. DC may be struggling, but they're not facing bankruptcy

[Tobias]

This. For better or for worse, Batman is the only proven property.

True and I can understand if WB decides not to do A-listers for a while - other than Batman. MOS doesn't count. WB had decided to shelve Superman until the court forced their hand.

So if it's Batman and B/C listers only for the next 5 plus years I may not be happy about it (I want a Flash film like yesterday) but I can totally understand it. WB is putting up the money - not us fanboys.

[cloverfan98]

No. DC may be struggling, but they're not facing bankruptcy

True but selling all those rights is what lead to us getting films for second listers like Dare Devil, Elektra, Punisher, Blade, etc.

[ЯɘvlveR]

then we'd be *****ing and complaining about the fact that we'll never get a jl film because too many companies own different dc properties.

[Parker Wayne]

True but selling all those rights is what lead to us getting films for second listers like Dare Devil, Elektra, Punisher, Blade, etc.

And how many of those actually got a sequel?

I see only one that did.

[cloverfan98]

And how many of those actually got a sequel?

I see only one that did.

Both Blade and Punisher had if not sequels then second and third films. Granted I'm not arguing that those were "good" movies, but rather that this would be an effective way for DC to get more of their characters onscreen.

[mclay18]

WB has an entire slate of movies to consider beyond the DC Comics superheroes. I don't think The Flash, Wonder Woman and Aquaman haven't happened because WB doesn't want to make money. They may well have happened because they simply don't have that kind of money free, or because they can't take the risk with that kind of money based ont he rest of their film slate. It's a bit of a gray area I'm sure. GREEN LANTERN was their first lighter foray into lighter fare, and it essentially failed. That was less than a year ago. It's not unreasonable that this failure would give them pause about moving forward, and how to move forward, but projects are clearly still being worked on. They are still developing superhero TV shows and films. That shows they are interested in using the DC stable of characters.


That is true, what with their two Hobbit films, plus Sherlock Holmes and Hangover having at least one more movie left -- WB could coast on those until after next year (and we'll see if MOS revitalizes the Superman franchise or not).

After that, WB is in a bind. They have themselves to blame for botching GL (even though I enjoyed it, lots more didn't), and it's clear that they need someone experienced steering their DC live-action department. Or why not dust off a script they already have, and shop it to directors for a fast-track?

I know the studio logistics are more complicated than they sound on paper, but this is ridiculous. Robinov is justifiably hesitant at greenlighting a DC film that's not a Batman film because of GL's failure, but you never what the results will be if you don't take a risk and make it. Lobo is much less expensive a risk than a CGI-heavy film, but it'll be the kind of writeoff Jonah Hex was. And that's not the right direction to go in.

[superion]

Marvel sold the rights to their characters to other movie studios because they did not have the ability to make their own movies prior to the formation of Marvel Studios and than their purchase by Disney.

DC never had that problem because it was owned by Warner Brothers. Disney has its own movie studio (Walt Disney pictures ), Pixar and Marvel Studios. Why can't Warner just spin off the DC properties into its own separate studio that works in conjunction with Warner studios.

From Wikipedia:
In November 2005, Marvel gained the film rights to Iron Man from New Line Cinema. Marvel revealed that it has regained the film rights to The Incredible Hulk in 2006. April 2006 Paramount Pictures acquired the rights to Thor from Sony. That year the film was announced to be a Marvel Studios production.

When Marvel Studio's decided to make their own movies in 2004, within 3 years of getting the rights back for Iron Man and and 2 years for the Incredible Hulk Marvel Studios was able to get out both films by the summer of 2008, IM2 in 2010 and both Thor and Captain America in 2011.

DCE has been around since late 2009 in that time they have pushed out one film Green Lantern in 2011 and a rebooted Superman for 2013 with absolutely nothing else in development for the future other than a sequel to Man of Steel if it does well. They need someone who is committed to making these films and getting them out instead of allowing them to languish in development hell.

They should announce both a Flash and WW movie for the summer of 2014 at $150 million budget and than get the JL movie out by 2015 with Reynolds as GL, Cavil as Superman, whoever they sign to play WW and Flash and a recast Batman since Bale no longer wants to play the role any more.

[Tobias]

That is true, what with their two Hobbit films, plus Sherlock Holmes and Hangover having at least one more movie left -- WB could coast on those until after next year (and we'll see if MOS revitalizes the Superman franchise or not).

After that, WB is in a bind.

The fact is WB is not in a bind.

They could never do another DC film aside from Batman and do just as well as a corporation and maybe better than if they did do major DC films. Just look at how SR and GL turned out.

MOS ain't a factor. Even if it does well WB isn't going to be able to touch Supes again for a long time because of legal issues.

Yet, as you mention there is SH, Hangover, Hobbit. Others too.

WB does not need the A-list DC proprties, aside from Batman, to flourish. It may be why they are turning to lesser characters like Lobo instead of Flash.

Even Batman does not have the ROI of a SH or Hangover.

WB is lots of things but it is not in a bind because of what it has not done with it's DC properties.

[roach]

comparing Marvel to WB is like comparing Pizza Hut to Olive Garden...sure PH makes bomb *ss pizza but thats it...Olive Garden has a full array of italian food to draw on...just because Olive Garden's pizza isn't as good as Pizza Hutt's doesn't mean its in a bind

[superion]

comparing Marvel to WB is like comparing Pizza Hut to Olive Garden...sure PH makes bomb *ss pizza but thats it...Olive Garden has a full array of italian food to draw on...just because Olive Garden's pizza isn't as good as Pizza Hutt's doesn't mean its in a bind

It's not comparing WB to Marvel its comparing WB to Disney which does everything it does with Pixar and everything else like WB, while also having Marvel Studios continue to work on the Marvel properties.

[Parker Wayne]

Both Blade and Punisher had if not sequels then second and third films. Granted I'm not arguing that those were "good" movies, but rather that this would be an effective way for DC to get more of their characters onscreen.

The point is not just simply get the characters on screen just because we want to see it. I'd rather trust WB/DC with the property than have them licensed to other studios. Marvel only did it because they didn't have a movie studio to back them nor could they at the time afford to make movies.

Meanwhile, DC has WB, for better or for worse. At least they have all their licenses under one studio.

[roach]

no they are not...they are comparing Marvel Studios they guys putting out the movies(yes under the Disney umbrella but are pretty much left to their own devices) to WB.

[ЯɘvlveR]

and now I'm hungry.

[Parker Wayne]

comparing Marvel to WB is like comparing Pizza Hut to Olive Garden...sure PH makes bomb *ss pizza but thats it...Olive Garden has a full array of italian food to draw on...just because Olive Garden's pizza isn't as good as Pizza Hutt's doesn't mean its in a bind

Exactly, though WB after TDKR is in huge need of new franchises.

That's why WB is going to be banking on MOS and Pacific Rim.

[mclay18]

WB is lots of things but it is not in a bind because of what it has not done with it's DC properties.

True. They're not in a bind right now because they have these other franchises to milk dry. But chances are they won't make a fourth Hangover (the actors' salaries) or SH (RDJ's asking price of $12M per film, plus backends) because costs will be prohibitively expensive, and the LOTR franchise will be done by December 2013.

WB will want to continue that reliable trend of mid-July releases that they started back in 2007 and will end in 2014. It's been a 'good luck' spot of sorts that's been hugely profitable for them (HP5, TDK, HP6, Inception, HP8, TDKR, and possibly Pacific Rim). Sure, they'll make money earlier or later on during the year, but mid-July was their 'good-luck charm' spot. They'll definitely want something big for July 2014. (I don't think possible sequels to Beautiful Creatures or Seventh Son will cut it.)

WB is just going about this the wrong way.

[roach]

there won't be a fourth Hangover because the third one will be the last one...and I can guarantee you there will be another SH movie

WB has a lot in the pipeline

[Bruce_Begins]

WB needs to stop making terrible Clash Of Titans sequels and use that money for a Wonder Woman movie, that will be more succesful.

[cloverfan98]

The point is not just simply get the characters on screen just because we want to see it. I'd rather trust WB/DC with the property than have them licensed to other studios. Marvel only did it because they didn't have a movie studio to back them nor could they at the time afford to make movies.

Meanwhile, DC has WB, for better or for worse. At least they have all their licenses under one studio.

Point taken. Green Lantern may have dissapointed at the BO (I kinda liked it) but do you guys really believe that GL's failure means the end for other DC characters beyond Batman and Superman? (don't mean this as a challenge just a legitamte question)

[Blackman]

I think it will stall them for a bit.

[JeetKuneDo]

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s2/HarpoSpoke/Lovethisthread.jpg

Good reading. Some of it is encouraging, some not so much. After reading through some of this I'm thinking Marvel may have benefited from having to let other studios handle some of their characters. If Marvel was having to do Spidey, X-Men, Daredevil, FF, Blade, Punisher, and Ghost Rider....would they ever have gotten around to Iron Man, Cap, Thor, and Avengers? The situation at WB with DC makes me wonder.
(I will say I wish Marvel was doing Ghost Rider...dammit...)

I want a Flash movie...badly. I hope the GL failure doesn't kill it. Also reading this thread makes me a little more into the idea of a WW movie.
To be honest, Happy Hogan could have done whatever a$$ kicking she did in IM 2, she was there just so that she could get entry into Avengers, the whole movie was a setup to Avengers.
I don't think Hogan beating the crap out of a room full of guys would have worked. It was much better to have him beat that one guy and think he had "helped". (that line made me laugh for 30 seconds straight in the theater) I don't think The Avengers had that big a presence in IM2 myself. After establishing that the characters exist in a shared universe in IM1, it wouldn't make any sense to have Nick Fury go away. Of course he will continue to keep tabs on Stark.
Iron Man 2 is the Green Lantern movie of Marvel Cinematic Universe.
If IM2 is the "worst one" that's pretty good for Marvel. I would put up Ghost Rider as "the worst Marvel movie character" myself. I had similar thoughts when I watched both GL and GR...."How did they screw this up? These characters should be no-brainers!"
The idea wasn't that bad had they just used an original character as Weapon XI instead of making him Deadpool. There was no reason he had to be Wade Wilson, except to piss people off.
That made me grin. :woot: I does make you wonder...why even name him Deadpool?
What they should've done is just used Hector Hammond as the sole villain, and made the story about Sinestro helping Hal defeat Hammond, perhaps with Sinestro starting to turn evil slowly in the process. Then ending the movie with a trip to Oa, having Hal earning his place to be amongst the Lanterns. I would've largely confined the first two acts to Earth, saved the trip to Oa for the end, and made Sinestro the only other Lantern we saw or heard from. I would've also had Sinestro stay in Hal's apartment, maybe make a running gag out of him trying to conceal who this person is from his friends and family. That way, in the next film, they could've really fleshed out the other Lanterns and the Guardians. Green Lantern is far too ambitious with all it tries to cram in. They spread themselves way too thin, and the result is what we all saw.
I like your plot much better than what we got. :csad:
In any event, WB had already decided to shelve Superman films because they are not financially feasible. No one seems to be expecting much from MOS. Maybe 400 million? When it costs 200 million to make and maybe 100 million to market that is a bad investment.

This is good for GL. WB is probably right now looking for that franchise to complement Batman. WW and Flash are contenders but GL is probably the only major DC franchise that can do huge numbers.

Just satyin - don't count GL out.
Isn't a 100 million profit pretty good?

I would also love to see GL get another shot...hope we don't have to wait 10 years.
Superman is worth the risk because if they get things right they will make a fortune. Probably more than any other hero in their stable of characters.

For how bad some of the posters make Superman returns out to be, the film made over 200 million domestic, something that very few comic book films have achieved. Can you imagine what it would make if it got the praise of iron man 1 or batman begins.

Really just to get an idea of his popularity you don't have to look any further than these boards. Go to the iron man and thor boards after the films came out, they were a dead zone. The superman boards, even after there was no sequel in sight still had more posters talking about a film that may or may not have happened.
My thoughts exactly. SR came out one year after BB. Both were preceded by terrible installments in the franchise. BB got great reviews and is widely loved by fans....SR got ok reviews and is widely disliked by fans. SR made about the same amount of money as BB despite that. That should tell you how strong the Superman character is. He made more than Thor, Captain America and X-Men despite having a less loved movie. Imagine how popular a Supes movie would be if they hit it out of the park?
Staggered releases are pretty stupid. That's actually what ruins some movies in terms of box office. And studies have revealed that staggered release dates hurt ticket sales more than piracy.
I wonder about this too. Why are they doing this with movies in the age of the internet? Just have a set release day worldwide. That would make it more of an "event" too.
I think Nolan is the worst thing that could have happened to DC when it comes to it's comic department. He doesn't want a shared DCU, which is now not going to happen. Batman "realism" is not really Batman. You can make the comic Batman work on film if done right.
I too would love to see the comic Batman onscreen at some point. In a way, you're right about Nolan. His success may put his opinions too high in WB's eyes. He may not have the best vision for non-Batman characters. "Dark" gets old after a while.
I'm trying to understand how Superman isnt considered a mega franchise, with its 5 films and the fact that it STARTED THE CBM GENRE, yet GL, with its one flop film is.

It...dosen't make sense.
Agreed. (Though I do love GL and want him to have another chance) I think Supes could really surprise people if they do it right.
I'd also say Ozy was the worst thing in Watchmen. Not that the performance was bad, but because the character was completely wrong. Soon as you saw him you could tell he was a villain, or at least shady. Ozy was meant to be the golden boy, the Captain America, the Superman. That's what made his reveal at the end all the more shocking.
As a person who saw the movie with no prior knowledge of the characters (I never read the GN), I never saw it coming. As a matter of fact....I wasn't really that sure Ozy was a "villain" after the movie was over! :yay: That's why I love it so much.

I'm probably one of the few who considers Watchmen the best comic book movie ever made though. (tied with Kick Ass on my list)
I am almost positive that Justice League would fail.

DC is too complicated and their heroes are over-powered except for a few like Batman and.....???
The Avengers has the same problem (Thor and Hulk are over-powered and Capt America, Hawkeye, and Black Widow are lesser powered), but from all accounts, Whedon makes it work. No reason why JL wouldn't work as well. The only difficulty I see is that Batman is the most popular and many of his fans want to see him as the "biggest, baddest dude on the planet"....that would look silly in a JL movie.
http://www.worldofsuperheroes.com/film-tv/top-warner-bros-executive-jeff-robinov-talks-justice-league-movie-and-reinventing-batman-after-the-dark-knight-rises/

"Robinov has said that a new Justice League script ‘is’ in the works. Also being written for Warner are scripts featuring the Flash and Wonder Woman."
Just looking at that logo at the top of the article is exciting. Make the movie with that vibe! :word:
I do appreciate he tried to do some new things with the character, but Superman will always be about hope, not dark and brooding.
Synders version isnt getting me excited either. Theres a whole universe out there - Brainiac, Darkseid, Metallo, and we're getting Luthor, Zod, origin story again.Oh, and dark and brooding Superman ala Batman influences. Superman doesnt have Batmans dark psychology.

sigh.
Agreed. The love affair with "dark" is getting on my nerves. Superman became the biggest icon in superhero history being based upon optimistic concepts.
I'd like WB to listen to pitches from directors passionate about the properties, it's no good setting up some internal structure within DC Entertainment to do it, find directors who actually want to make the movies and let things evolve organically, once you do that don't force things to happen, don't leave things out for future movies, just make the best damn movie here and now. Part of where GL went wrong was WB were so sure of themselves they planted seeds for future GL movies. I hate that mentality, don't plant seeds, don't leave things out, make the best effing movie first and foremost, deal with sequels when they come around.
Agreed! That was also a problem for me with Capt America. It never felt like it was its own entity. (Really the only Marvel movie that gave me that vibe)
For some reason, the movie studios think that comic characters have origins, and then their adventures stop.

I simply do not need to see Superman or Batman's origin ever again, and anyone on earth who doesn't already know Batman and Superman's origins will likely not bother to see their movies anyway.
Same with Spider-Man. I am wondering why ASM is going that route. Who doesn't know his origin? I would say he's got the 2nd most well-known origin after Superman.
find GREEN LANTERN's failure to be a bit of an anomaly, myself. It's a fairly safe movie, but it didn't make a lot of money. I don't think it's because audiences suddenly developed critiquing skills, so I can't say it's because it wasn't a good movie. It was a decent film. Personally, I think GREEN LANTERN suffered from a Summer of Superheroes and Action.
I think it was the movie. Capt America came out after GL and did better.
What Whedon describes as Marvel having a "base" to build on in Iron-Man, DC had in the Dark Knight, they just refused to recognized it as their base, and saw it and the rest of their franchise as separate.

I think this was their biggest mistake.
You might be right.

[jmc]

It's not comparing WB to Marvel its comparing WB to Disney which does everything it does with Pixar and everything else like WB, while also having Marvel Studios continue to work on the Marvel properties.

Thing is Disney needed something to tap into the male demographic they had lost over the years, the Marvel acquisition was for that reason. WB have been tapping into that market for decades. Pixar is it's own beast because frankly they've earned it with the record they've gotten. Marvel don't have the same pulling power as Pixar yet and it's hard to say if they ever will given they only make one specific type of movie so it remains to be seen if will always be the ones calling the shots.

[J.Howlett]

If WB continues to make franchise pictures out of original ideas or other literary adaptations (Hangover and Sherlock Holmes franchises come to mind), I agree with the assessment that they'll just keep making DC properties of the C or D list rosters. Sort of in the same vein as V for Vendetta and Constantine. They don't cost a lot but they could deliver a lot of money.

They'll have one of the big two (Batman and Superman) always in the mix amongst all these other properties they have.

[superion]

no they are not...they are comparing Marvel Studios they guys putting out the movies(yes under the Disney umbrella but are pretty much left to their own devices) to WB.

Why can't WB allow DC to do the same with its properties? What the hell is DCE good for if they are not going to have any autonomy to get their properties out.

[J.Howlett]

DCE, if I recall, isn't only about feature length films. They have other avenues to get out their properties.

Hell, they have the direct to video animated movies genre pretty much on lock down.

[jmc]

If WB continues to make franchise pictures out of original ideas or other literary adaptations (Hangover and Sherlock Holmes franchises come to mind), I agree with the assessment that they'll just keep making DC properties of the C or D list rosters. Sort of in the same vein as V for Vendetta and Constantine. They don't cost a lot but they could deliver a lot of money.

They'll have one of the big two (Batman and Superman) always in the mix amongst all these other properties they have.

Exactly, WB will always have more money making possibilities up their sleeve outside the superhero genre. They don't need to littering the screen with superheroes each and every year, if anything it doesn't make financial sense for them to do so. Does it suck? Yeah, but you can't blame them.

[roach]

Why can't WB allow DC to do the same with its properties? What the hell is DCE good for if they are not going to have any autonomy to get their properties out.

because DCE isn't a studio....its an entertainment group within WB. Marvel was a self sufficient studio before Disney came calling

[Docker2.0]

DCE, if I recall, isn't only about feature length films. They have other avenues to get out their properties.

Hell, they have the direct to video animated movies genre pretty much on lock down.

Compare those direct to video receipts to Marvel's live action receipts and tell me you still prefer WB/DC strategy. It's not knocking them per say because there animated movies are great. But it also goes to show you that there is a demand for DC heroes because they are bringing in money with those movies. If they translated that to live action they can get 10x as much returned. As much as I hate to use TDK, it's the perfect example.

[The Guard]

Green Lantern ruined it for all of us I'm afraid. I wish DC had its own movie company like Marvel. With WB, now we are gonna have to wait at least 5 years for them to give another A lister a chance. The handling of Green Lantern pains my heart because I'm a huge DC fan.

Whatr are you basing this on? Assumption? WB has flat out said they're still working on Justice League, The Flash and Wonder Woman concepts.

Green Lantern is the answer to this topic, THIS MOVIE IS WHERE IT WENT WRONG. Instead of being the movie to open up all the doors, Green Lantern locked them tight for half a decade atleast. Breaks my heart man, like I said I'm a huge DC fan, and I could write a 100 page essay on how Green Lantern is such a simple concept to translate to

GREEN LANTERN slowed things down a bit, but even if it took five years from 2011 for WB to move on another DC superhero besides Batman and Superman (which seems really unlikely), half a decade isn't really anything in movie studio terms. IRON MAN, etc, took more than a decade to bring to the screen in various forms.

I'd actually expand that to say that the combination of SR followed by GL is where it all went wrong. If just one had done well and the other not, WB would be gung-ho to try more DC films. That was not to be.

SUPERMAN RETURNS did well enough that WB seriously considered and began developing a sequel. They are two different animals. Once THE DARK KNIGHT cleaned up and Marvel entered the field, WB no longer wanted to make "just enough" money off superhero properties. Hence the switch to GREEN LANTERN's approach, which obviously didn't work out as they'd hoped.

This. For better or for worse, Batman is the only proven property.

To a point. I think Superman, both historically and recently, is still a very visible, proven concept, albeit not as financially successful. That is, unless MAN OF STEEL fails.

True and I can understand if WB decides not to do A-listers for a while - other than Batman. MOS doesn't count. WB had decided to shelve Superman until the court forced their hand.

It's annoying to keep hearing this parrotted, because as far as I know there is simply no proof for this. No they hadn't decided to "shelve Superman because of the court issue". They had struggled to find a direction for the next Superman film even before this. But they were still developing something. The court forced them to make the film by a certain date, but the film was taking shape as it was.

So if it's Batman and B/C listers only for the next 5 plus years I may not be happy about it (I want a Flash film like yesterday) but I can totally understand it. WB is putting up the money - not us fanboys.

Agreed.

That is true, what with their two Hobbit films, plus Sherlock Holmes and Hangover having at least one more movie left -- WB could coast on those until after next year (and we'll see if MOS revitalizes the Superman franchise or not).

After that, WB is in a bind. They have themselves to blame for botching GL (even though I enjoyed it, lots more didn't), and it's clear that they need someone experienced steering their DC live-action department. Or why not dust off a script they already have, and shop it to directors for a fast-track?

Let's not forget, WB doesn't just make blockbuster/fantasy/adventure films. They make smaller movies that also make them money. That's part of their obligation...to these other markets. If they can make four smaller movies for $100 million and gross $400 million, it's understandable that they'd risk that VS a $150-$200 million dollar movie that might fail as Green Lantern did.

I know the studio logistics are more complicated than they sound on paper, but this is ridiculous. Robinov is justifiably hesitant at greenlighting a DC film that's not a Batman film because of GL's failure, but you never what the results will be if you don't take a risk and make it. Lobo is much less expensive a risk than a CGI-heavy film, but it'll be the kind of writeoff Jonah Hex was. And that's not the right direction to go in.

But it's only 2012. Just because they haven't greenlit another $150-$200 million film since GL's failure in 2011 doesn't mean they're not willing to take any more risks. Just not at the moment. Especially since they are bankrolling very large budgeted Batman and Superman movies right now.

DC never had that problem because it was owned by Warner Brothers. Disney has its own movie studio (Walt Disney pictures ), Pixar and Marvel Studios. Why can't Warner just spin off the DC properties into its own separate studio that works in conjunction with Warner studios.

Disney is Disney. There's just no comparing it to most other corporations.

WB can make movies. The problem isn't that it has no capability to make movies. The problem is that it apparently lacks the money/resources to do so.

All of Marvel's money goes to making superhero movies. That's all it does. WB doesn't have that luxury.

If WB has another studio, it still has to find that money somewhere from within the company.

Could WB open a new studio? I don't know, probably. But when you consider startup and operating costs, and the fact that they'd still have to have money for films from within WB itself, I think the benefits of it are probably negligible. I'm certain someone with far more knowledge of movies and business than most of us has already figured out that "Just copy Marvel" is an option, and explored it.

When Marvel Studio's decided to make their own movies in 2004, within 3 years of getting the rights back for Iron Man and and 2 years for the Incredible Hulk, Marvel Studios was able to get out both films by the summer of 2008, IM2 in 2010 and both Thor and Captain America in 2011.

DCE has been around since late 2009 in that time they have pushed out one film Green Lantern in 2011 and a rebooted Superman for 2013 with absolutely nothing else in development for the future other than a sequel to Man of Steel if it does well.

There's a rebooted Batman franchise already planned. They're working on Flash and Wonder Woman and JLA projects. Lobo was just announced. This isn't "absolutely nothing". Not by a long shot.

They need someone who is committed to making these films and getting them out instead of allowing them to languish in development hell.

They need someone to make good movies. They tried being committed to a concept and getting it out. That was GREEN LANTERN.

They should announce both a Flash and WW movie for the summer of 2014 at $150 million budget and than get the JL movie out by 2015 with Reynolds as GL, Cavil as Superman, whoever they sign to play WW and Flash and a recast Batman since Bale no longer wants to play the role any more.

That would be nice. But that also may not be financially feasible at the moment, since they're currently wrapping up THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, which cost something like $250 million, and MAN OF STEEL, which cost $175, and have to spend money marketing both.

MOS ain't a factor. Even if it does well WB isn't going to be able to touch Supes again for a long time because of legal issues.

Based on what? Where's the proof that this is the case?

WB does not need the A-list DC proprties, aside from Batman, to flourish. It may be why they are turning to lesser characters like Lobo instead of Flash. Even Batman does not have the ROI of a SH or Hangover.

And there it is.

[Blackman]

what's ROI mean?

[HighFivingMF]

They're not going to be unable to touch Superman.

[Cain]

what's ROI mean?


Return on investment.

[Cain]

They're not going to be unable to touch Superman.

Agreed. It seems like some people are conveniently forgetting current events as far as the lawsuit goes because it doesn't match up with their own personal opinions

http://www.comicsbeat.com/2012/04/17/wb-gets-major-victory-in-superman-suit-against-attorney-marc-toberoff/

[Ultimatehero]

I'm unsure how much free-range Disney has. But I think MARVEL films just need to align with what MARVEL and DISNEY have in mind. Further complicating things over at WB - it has to be what the head of WB, head of the production company behind said film, and head of DC all equally want and agree upon. I've seen dozens here make the misconception that if you know what's going on with one DC film, you must know what's going on with the others - far from the case. It's extremely divided. They need to all be on the same page. Getting on that same page is difficult. As even Whedon once said, "they didn't seem to know exactly what they wanted." Probably due to it having three heads that need to line up over than just two - making them take longer.

[Cain]

There's a rebooted Batman franchise already planned. They're working on Flash and Wonder Woman and JLA projects. Lobo was just announced. This isn't "absolutely nothing". Not by a long shot.



Yes sir.

People also conveniently forget that since 2009 DCE had their hands in bringing Jonah Hex, The Losers and RED to the screen and not just GL. They're also working on developing a sequel to RED at the moment. That's hardly "absolutely nothing".

DCE also like their parent company have their hand in more than just big screen comic book adaptations. It's not like the people in those offices are just twiddling their thumbs and staring at the wall everyday. They have to worry about publishing comic books; developing animated DTV's; getting video games and tv programs off the ground and merchandising & licensing deals on top of developing big screen adaptations of their properties.

I'm actually impressed by their output since 2009 actually. Not just on the big screen & with their DTV's but with the comic relaunch; Young Justice and Green Lantern animated shows and the Batman Arkham video game series as well as DCU Online. That's quite a lot of production for a 3 year time frame when you think about.

[OsGom]

Honestly I think one of the main issues with with the GL movie, and many other superhero adaptations, is they blew their wad right away. Parallax is a great villain in the comics and a classic GL story arc but it requires some pretty significant set-up if it was to be adapted well.

Instead filmmakers, including Geoff Johns, thought they could haphazardly cram various elements from different arcs together and tell an effective story. All this resulted in a film that failed connect GL and his story with audiences and at the same time slapping long time DC/GL fans right in the chops. FF, X3, and DD suffered from these same issues.

[roach]

They're not going to be unable to touch Superman.

if the family wins the lawsuit DC can still touch Superman...they just lose parts of the origin

[HighFivingMF]

if the family wins the lawsuit DC can still touch Superman...they just lose parts of the origin

Yep. We're getting the origin in this movie though, so it won't be a problem.

[ElMariachi]

No one's asking that CAPTAIN AMERICA and THOR receive no credit. But as films, and as superhero films, they are relatively safe movies. No amount of rationalizing the reasons for this will change that. The content is very straightforward, somewhat predictable, and safe in its character explorations.


Have you ever heard the phrase, 'better safe than sorry'? I think it applies to these two movies. Captain America and Thor are difficult characters to adapt for movies and audiences. Allowing these iffy concepts/fringe characters to become even more unusual/bizarre could have easily blown up in Marvel's face. Instead of this happening, we got two great character introductions and guaranteed franchises. The creativity for plots will be opened up now that there is familiarity with these two characters. Also now that the Avengers storyline is over. We have already heard about the directions they are taking Iron Man 3, Captain America 2, and Thor 2. Captain America and Thor should be given alot of credit on this forum due to their success. Aside from already popular characters (Batman, Superman, Spiderman), has anybody really taken such gambles on relatively minor characters? $150 million on a bizarre concept like Thor with Frost Giants, Norse gods, wormholes, and guys with horned helmets vying for the throne of cosmic floating islands. The general audience didn't buy into John Carter, so it's not all that easy to pull off.

I don't think Thor was a safe movie. Captain America a bit but it had to be. The problem with Captain America is that we already knew what was going to happen. Much of the movie had to be devoted to his orgin and becoming Captain America. The end of the movie was going to be a suicide mission where he 'died'. There is only so much time for the middle of the movie to allow for a complex plot.

[Docker2.0]

Honestly I think one of the main issues with with the GL movie, and many other superhero adaptations, is they blew their wad right away. Parallax is a great villain in the comics and a classic GL story arc but it requires some pretty significant set-up if it was to be adapted well.

Instead filmmakers, including Geoff Johns, thought they could haphazardly cram various elements from different arcs together and tell an effective story. All this resulted in a film that failed connect GL and his story with audiences and at the same time slapping long time DC/GL fans right in the chops. FF, X3, and DD suffered from these same issues.

OMG! I thought I was the only one who felt that way!! When I first heard that he was the villain in GL, I was like WTF but I was willing to give it a chance. But to this day, I can't see to watch the entire GL movie all the way through. Sinestro or Hector should have been the villian for the first movie. I would probably use Parallex for the second actually, only because I wanted to use the Black Lanterns for part 3. But if you are going to build up for Parallex, I guess it would make sense for him to be in part 3 as well but not both.

[Mr. Immortal]

Have you ever heard the phrase, 'better safe than sorry'? I think it applies to these two movies. Captain America and Thor are difficult characters to adapt for movies and audiences. Allowing these iffy concepts/fringe characters to become even more unusual/bizarre could have easily blown up in Marvel's face. Instead of this happening, we got two great character introductions and guaranteed franchises. The creativity for plots will be opened up now that there is familiarity with these two characters. Also now that the Avengers storyline is over. We have already heard about the directions they are taking Iron Man 3, Captain America 2, and Thor 2. Captain America and Thor should be given alot of credit on this forum due to their success. Aside from already popular characters (Batman, Superman, Spiderman), has anybody really taken such gambles on relatively minor characters? $150 million on a bizarre concept like Thor with Frost Giants, Norse gods, wormholes, and guys with horned helmets vying for the throne of cosmic floating islands. The general audience didn't buy into John Carter, so it's not all that easy to pull off.

I don't think Thor was a safe movie. Captain America a bit but it had to be. The problem with Captain America is that we already knew what was going to happen. Much of the movie had to be devoted to his orgin and becoming Captain America. The end of the movie was going to be a suicide mission where he 'died'. There is only so much time for the middle of the movie to allow for a complex plot.

Finally, someone who gets it.

[CConn]

I mainly agree, and don't get me wrong, I love Captain America as a movie, but they could've made it edgier even with the same plot structure.

The problems that I had with the movie - that I think made it seem like a softball effort at times - was the real lack of an actual Nazi presence and influence (HYDRA was much too much of its own thing, IMO...and there was a definitive lack of swastikas in the movie, which I think is telling), and it never really featured Cap in a real WW2, Saving Private Ryan-esque battle.

They focused more on the super heroics and the sci-fi than the grittiness of the war. And that's where the movie felt soft, IMO. It was more about tone and focus than plotting or story. They could've told that exact same story in a decidedly more mature and adult way. But they didn't.

Like I said though, I still think its a very good movie despite those flaws. It's actually one of my favorite Marvel movies.

[Slushy]

- Rebooting Superman instead of making a better sequel

- Not keeping Bale or Nolan around after TDKR

- Allowing the casting of Reynolds as Hal Jordan

- Not making a Flash, Wonder Woman, or Aqua Man movie.

[Parker Wayne]

It's simple. Swastika's and costumes aside, they really stuck really close to the feel of the original 40s comics and actually downplayed the more fantastical elements.

It's one of my favorite Marvel movies. It's one of the ones I actually own.

[Parker Wayne]

- Rebooting Superman instead of making a better sequel

- Not keeping Bale or Nolan around after TDKR

- Allowing the casting of Reynolds as Hal Jordan

- Not making a Flash, Wonder Woman, or Aqua Man movie.

A few things:

I agree with the Superman thing. I think a sequel (with or without Routh) could have done really well if they actually upped the action in it.

We can't tell if Nolan or Bale will go wrong after, though I believe Nolan would still be a producer of whatever Batman movies come after, which I think is a good thing.

And after Green Lantern, would you think that WB right now could pull of making a Flash, Wonder Woman or Aqua Man movie right now? I think those could be even worse.

[HighFivingMF]

The general consensus was that there was nothing wrong with Reynolds as Hal.

[Parker Wayne]

Which is why I said nothing about that. If hey wanted him to play it straight, he could have done that.

[mclay18]

People also conveniently forget that since 2009 DCE had their hands in bringing Jonah Hex, The Losers and RED to the screen and not just GL. They're also working on developing a sequel to RED at the moment. That's hardly "absolutely nothing".

RED was produced independently by Summit/Lionsgate, not WB. Gregory Noveck had to get approval from all divisions at WB to exercise his right to shop the movie rights to other studios, and that took a while.

[metaphysician]

I mainly agree, and don't get me wrong, I love Captain America as a movie, but they could've made it edgier even with the same plot structure.

The problems that I had with the movie - that I think made it seem like a softball effort at times - was the real lack of an actual Nazi presence and influence (HYDRA was much too much of its own thing, IMO...and there was a definitive lack of swastikas in the movie, which I think is telling), and it never really featured Cap in a real WW2, Saving Private Ryan-esque battle.

They focused more on the super heroics and the sci-fi than the grittiness of the war. And that's where the movie felt soft, IMO. It was more about tone and focus than plotting or story. They could've told that exact same story in a decidedly more mature and adult way. But they didn't.

Like I said though, I still think its a very good movie despite those flaws. It's actually one of my favorite Marvel movies.

This was almost certainly done so that they could market the movie in Europe. If they included a much stronger overt Nazi element, they couldn't have released the movie in a lot of countries, not just Germany.

[roach]

which didn't seem to affect Inglourious Basterds any

[Parker Wayne]

Inglorious Basterds couldn't market anything with a swastika in Germany, but they could show it in movies.

Captain America had some Nazi's in it, but ultimately I didn't really care that much about the lack of swastikas.

[Cain]

RED was produced independently by Summit/Lionsgate, not WB. Gregory Noveck had to get approval from all divisions at WB to exercise his right to shop the movie rights to other studios, and that took a while.

DC Entertainment not Warner Bros.

[Parker Wayne]

Someone's mad they got corrected. :funny:

[Cain]

Someone's mad they got corrected. :funny:


What are you talking about guy? it's simple semantics and reading comprehension. I'm talking about DCE a subdivision of WB. Subdivision is not WB themselves it means WB is the parent company. DC Entertainment's official resume

http://www.imdb.com/company/co0283444/

I know that WB didn't distribute RED I never said they did. I know that it was a Summit Entertainment release but you also see DC Entertainment credited as one of the production companies on all the official press releases for that movie because that's what they did. It's why their older logo from that time is on the poster for that movie.

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/uploads/2010/03/new-red-poster-all-cast.jpg

Production company does not = movie studio and vice versa.

[JeetKuneDo]

Which is why I said nothing about that. If hey wanted him to play it straight, he could have done that.
Agreed. Buried is required viewing for anyone who doesn't believe Reynolds can play it "straight". You'll never doubt his abilities again after seeing that one.

[Cain]

I'm not even a Ryan Reynolds fan like that. I guess I've enjoyed some of his movies but it's not like it's an actor I usually check for or own his movies or anything. I was one of the one's who thought his casting as Hal was suspect. I think in the end he did a good job with what he had though. I think him being cast wasn't a problem there were much bigger problems with that movie overall.

[Cain]

I mainly agree, and don't get me wrong, I love Captain America as a movie, but they could've made it edgier even with the same plot structure.

The problems that I had with the movie - that I think made it seem like a softball effort at times - was the real lack of an actual Nazi presence and influence (HYDRA was much too much of its own thing, IMO...and there was a definitive lack of swastikas in the movie, which I think is telling), and it never really featured Cap in a real WW2, Saving Private Ryan-esque battle.

They focused more on the super heroics and the sci-fi than the grittiness of the war. And that's where the movie felt soft, IMO. It was more about tone and focus than plotting or story. They could've told that exact same story in a decidedly more mature and adult way. But they didn't.

Like I said though, I still think its a very good movie despite those flaws. It's actually one of my favorite Marvel movies.

I agree.

[Parker Wayne]

What are you talking about guy? it's simple semantics and reading comprehension. I'm talking about DCE a subdivision of WB. Subdivision is not WB themselves it means WB is the parent company. DC Entertainment's official resume

http://www.imdb.com/company/co0283444/

I know that WB didn't distribute RED I never said they did. I know that it was a Summit Entertainment release but you also see DC Entertainment credited as one of the production companies on all the official press releases for that movie because that's what they did. It's why their older logo from that time is on the poster for that movie.

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/uploads/2010/03/new-red-poster-all-cast.jpg

Production company does not = movie studio and vice versa.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmrnffh6T81qdvatvo1_500.jpg

You're right, by the way. I'm just trolling you.

[Cain]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmrnffh6T81qdvatvo1_500.jpg

How cute. If I'm bold enough to show my actual face on here it's because just like it is for me offline I'm not one to talk out of my ass and have nothing to hide behind. It's not in my nature. I also don't catch feelings over something this trivial let alone things that are actually worth catching feelings over cause it's not in my nature. What is in my nature though is that I deal with facts.

[Parker Wayne]

Cool.

You know I agreed with you, right?

[Cain]

I never saw the spoiler tag cause the pic was so big. But ok.

[cronosred]

For all the complaints about the villains in Green Lantern and how they were taken out was no one upset that Red Skull was such a lame villain? I mean he's equally matched in strength with our hero plus he has the Cosmic Cube with the power to change the world and yet the minute Cap shows up he feels outmatched and spends the rest of the film running from him until the end when he defeats himself. Did no one else have a problem with this?

[Anubis]

I never saw the spoiler tag cause the pic was so big. But ok.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v485/AnubisGOD/up-ICRD516S86GLBMIN.jpg

[Cain]

Jay Leno's troll face >>>> any other troll face.

[Lone]

I mainly agree, and don't get me wrong, I love Captain America as a movie, but they could've made it edgier even with the same plot structure.

The problems that I had with the movie - that I think made it seem like a softball effort at times - was the real lack of an actual Nazi presence and influence (HYDRA was much too much of its own thing, IMO...and there was a definitive lack of swastikas in the movie, which I think is telling), and it never really featured Cap in a real WW2, Saving Private Ryan-esque battle.

They focused more on the super heroics and the sci-fi than the grittiness of the war. And that's where the movie felt soft, IMO. It was more about tone and focus than plotting or story. They could've told that exact same story in a decidedly more mature and adult way. But they didn't.

Like I said though, I still think its a very good movie despite those flaws. It's actually one of my favorite Marvel movies.

I agree. One my faves and actually the movie that made me wanna read Cap's comics.

I personally would've loved a two hour version of The Ultimates' opening act.

[The Guard]

They're not going to be unable to touch Superman.

In what realistic world does DC Comics lose the rights to Superman without attempting to settle? Even if they get the rights to the origin, etc back, the families aren't just going to sit on Superman's origin. They will want money. They will make a deal.

As even Whedon once said, "they didn't seem to know exactly what they wanted." Probably due to it having three heads that need to line up over than just two - making them take longer.

Whedon was on Wonder several years ago. Rumors for it started as early as 2004. No one really knew what they wanted back then. They knew Spider-Man and X-Men had succeeded, but there was still question about lesser known characters. Superheroes didn't become a priority until around 2008, with the release of The Dark Knight and Iron Man. Those two movies changed things.

DCE also like their parent company have their hand in more than just big screen comic book adaptations. It's not like the people in those offices are just twiddling their thumbs and staring at the wall everyday. They have to worry about publishing comic books; developing animated DTV's; getting video games and tv programs off the ground and merchandising & licensing deals on top of developing big screen adaptations of their properties.

I'm actually impressed by their output since 2009 actually. Not just on the big screen & with their DTV's but with the comic relaunch; Young Justice and Green Lantern animated shows and the Batman Arkham video game series as well as DCU Online. That's quite a lot of production for a 3 year time frame when you think about.

Exactly.

I don't think people understand what a colossal amount of work a blockbuster superhero movie can be. Or if they do, they're discounting it, assuming it's particuarly doable to make two or three of them in the span of a few years at a studio like WB.

DCE's production is light years beyond where WB/DC were ten years ago, when they basically just had BATMAN BEYOND, TEEN TITANS or JUSTICE LEAGUE at any given time, and SMALLVILLE.

Honestly I think one of the main issues with with the GL movie, and many other superhero adaptations, is they blew their wad right away. Parallax is a great villain in the comics and a classic GL story arc but it requires some pretty significant set-up if it was to be adapted well.

Not really. Parallax is a fear entity. There's only so much you can say about it. There's only so much set up it requires. Nor are Parallax and Legion the Green Lantern's greatest villains. The blowing their wad thing isn't terribly accurate.

Blowin their wad would have been using Sinestro, or the Sinestro Corps and Parallax, right off the bat. Which maybe is what they should have done. That might have been cost prohibitive for an unproved character.

Instead filmmakers, including Geoff Johns, thought they could haphazardly cram various elements from different arcs together and tell an effective story.

I don't know that it was haphazard as all that. It could have worked. There's really no reason that combining the ideas of Legion, Parallax, and Krona could not have worked.

It just didn't work that well.

Have you ever heard the phrase, 'better safe than sorry'? I think it applies to these two movies. Captain America and Thor are difficult characters to adapt for movies and audiences. Allowing these iffy concepts/fringe characters to become even more unusual/bizarre could have easily blown up in Marvel's face. Instead of this happening, we got two great character introductions and guaranteed franchises.

I've never said that being safe was a bad thing for the franchises. Only pointed out that they were, in fact, safe films.

Captain America is basically a genetically enginerred soldier. We've seen that on film before. Though the character was these things long before most film versions, it is no longer a new concept, or even a particularly unique one. World War II isn't a terribly risky subject.

The creativity for plots will be opened up now that there is familiarity with these two characters. Also now that the Avengers storyline is over. We have already heard about the directions they are taking Iron Man 3, Captain America 2, and Thor 2. Captain America and Thor should be given alot of credit on this forum due to their success.

I hope so. We'll see.

Aside from already popular characters (Batman, Superman, Spiderman), has anybody really taken such gambles on relatively minor characters?

They were a calculated risk after IRON MAN and IRON MAN. But have studios taken risks? Yes. THE FANTASTIC FOUR. GHOST RIDER. DAREDEVIL. And lesser budgets, but still risks for BLADE, HELLBOY and SPAWN.

$150 million on a bizarre concept like Thor with Frost Giants, Norse gods, wormholes, and guys with horned helmets vying for the throne of cosmic floating islands. The general audience didn't buy into John Carter, so it's not all that easy to pull off.

That isn't really all that bizarre, though. It's a fantasy/myth. Those kinds of movies have existed for a long time.

I don't think Thor was a safe movie.

How so? The most unsafe thing Thor did was have him separated from Jane.

Captain America a bit but it had to be.

Why?

The problem with Captain America is that we already knew what was going to happen. Much of the movie had to be devoted to his orgin and becoming Captain America. The end of the movie was going to be a suicide mission where he 'died'. There is only so much time for the middle of the movie to allow for a complex plot.

The average audience member doesn't know that, though. Fans do, but general audiences don't.

Sinestro or Hector should have been the villian for the first movie. I would probably use Parallex for the second actually, only because I wanted to use the Black Lanterns for part 3. But if you are going to build up for Parallex, I guess it would make sense for him to be in part 3 as well but not both.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Back in 2010, when people found out Parallax was involved, most were thrilled.

Most people seemed to hate Hector Hammond, period, after the movie, but people were excited that mythos character was being used before that.

There were no guarantees of a sequel, or a part 3. They should probably have used Sinestro and Parallax in the first film, with Hammond in a lesser role, instead of banking on a sequel. But they were trying to take Chris Nolan's approach, saving the major villain for a sequel.

The problems that I had with the movie - that I think made it seem like a softball effort at times - was the real lack of an actual Nazi presence and influence (HYDRA was much too much of its own thing, IMO...and there was a definitive lack of swastikas in the movie, which I think is telling), and it never really featured Cap in a real WW2, Saving Private Ryan-esque battle.

They focused more on the super heroics and the sci-fi than the grittiness of the war. And that's where the movie felt soft, IMO. It was more about tone and focus than plotting or story. They could've told that exact same story in a decidedly more mature and adult way. But they didn't.

Agreed.

There's never any real exploration of the war, or the concepts of war in relation to Captain America. There was never any moral exploration into his actions, into his power and what that meant. His conflicts were surface conflicts, with obvious moral answers, and easily resolved. It's still a good movie, just not what it could have been.

Rebooting Superman instead of making a better sequel

Rebooting is what most people seemed to want and respond to.

Not keeping Bale or Nolan around after TDKR

They are keeping Nolan around after TDKR, for both Batman and Superman franchises. Bale doesn't want to play Batman forever, or I imagine they would try to retain him.

Allowing the casting of Reynolds as Hal Jordan

Which many fans liked, and many general audiences were excited about, and which worked for the most part.

Not making a Flash, Wonder Woman, or Aqua Man movie

Yes, they've only made three Batman movies, two Superman movies and Green Lantern, Watchmen and V For Vendetta in the last ten years.

Which is why I said nothing about that. If hey wanted him to play it straight, he could have done that.

This is the problem I have with people's assessment of GREEN LANTENR. By and large, Ryan Reynolds DID play the role straight. Despite its comic booky tone, there really aren't very many humorous moments in the film compared to all the serious stuff with Hal. There are a few jokes here and there, and the rest of the movie that features Hal is him dealing with relatively serious issues.

Green Lantern is not a super serious character. He makes jokes. He has a sense of humor.

Reynolds is completely capable of being a serious actor, but this film did not call for that.

[quote]This was almost certainly done so that they could market the movie in Europe. If they included a much stronger overt Nazi element, they couldn't have released the movie in a lot of countries, not just Germany

Why? Is this accurate?

For all the complaints about the villains in Green Lantern and how they were taken out was no one upset that Red Skull was such a lame villain? I mean he's equally matched in strength with our hero plus he has the Cosmic Cube with the power to change the world and yet the minute Cap shows up he feels outmatched and spends the rest of the film running from him until the end when he defeats himself. Did no one else have a problem with this?

The Red Skull was the worst disappointment of Captain America for me. Just very thinly portrayed. Weaving did a great job with almost nothing to work with.

[Docker2.0]

How cute. If I'm bold enough to show my actual face on here it's because just like it is for me offline I'm not one to talk out of my ass and have nothing to hide behind. It's not in my nature. I also don't catch feelings over something this trivial let alone things that are actually worth catching feelings over cause it's not in my nature. What is in my nature though is that I deal with facts.

That really is you? You need to smile more because your gif looks like a mug shot. Just putting it out there. :o

[ElMariachi]

I've never said that being safe was a bad thing for the franchises. Only pointed out that they were, in fact, safe films.

Captain America is basically a genetically enginerred soldier. We've seen that on film before. Though the character was these things long before most film versions, it is no longer a new concept, or even a particularly unique one. World War II isn't a terribly risky subject.


Captain America is more than a genetically engineered soldier. He is a propaganda character, a relic of the past, and pretty much a boy scout. We really haven't seen anything like this. Surely nothing that could be considered a summer tentpole. Characters like Captain America or Superman are difficult to pull off these days because audiences expect characters like Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, Han Solo, Indiana Jones, Wolverine, James Bond, Jack Sparrow, Peter Parker, etc.

Also, WWII is a very risky subject. Especially when the movie is a PG-13 summer movie and aimed at a global, young audience. The war is still a very touchy subject around the world and Marvel had to be extremely careful on how it was portrayed. You are talking about an American propaganda character in a post-9/11 era of anti-Americanism in a movie where people assume it will portray American winning WWII single-handedly. They had to deal with that and the challenge of not making the movie cheesy. Take a look at the box office returns of WWII movies. It's not an easy sell.

Marvel should given high praise for it's success. It is the most difficult superhero to pull off and they did a great job with it. The movie was a hit, got pretty high praise, and from what I hear, flows nicely into Avengers.


They were a calculated risk after IRON MAN and IRON MAN. But have studios taken risks? Yes. THE FANTASTIC FOUR. GHOST RIDER. DAREDEVIL. And lesser budgets, but still risks for BLADE, HELLBOY and SPAWN.

Those aren't quite on the same level as CA. Captain America was Marvel's big movie and a key cog to the Avengers. The rest of those movies were financed by major studios without really that much risk. Captain America or Thor bombing or getting poor reviews could have seriously tarnished their long term goals. Marvel Studios isn't Warner Brothers were it could swallow a Green Lantern, Superman Returns, or Jonah Hex.


That isn't really all that bizarre, though. It's a fantasy/myth. Those kinds of movies have existed for a long time.

Norse mythology is unique to the big screen compared to Greek mythology. Aside from Beowulf, what other live action movies come to mind? The notion of Asgard and Norse gods living in the same universe as us is a bizarre concept for most people. You may not remember but there was alot of people doubting they could even pull this off and the movie not being horrible.



How so? The most unsafe thing Thor did was have him separated from Jane.

This whole safe/unsafe thing is completely ridiculous. Almost all movies have 'safe' plot points. The Dark Knight included and certainly every other superhero movie. You are splitting hairs here.

I personally don't think it's a 'safe' plot having Norse gods travelling to the earth via wormholes. To the general audience, it's still a pretty silly concept. Nor do I think anything regarding the scenes in Asgard are 'safe'.


The average audience member doesn't know that, though. Fans do, but general audiences don't.

That's the characters story arc. You start changing too much and it begins to look stupid. Captain America has to be a weakling that turns into a peak human being. He has to freeze and sleep in a block of ice for decades. Not having those two aspects of his character would be like Spider-Man not getting bit, Bruce Wayne's parents being alive, and Iron Man not building his suit in captivity.

[jmc]

If by flows nicely you mean they show flash back images to the solo film then.....yeah I guess it does. Avengers is very much a stand alone movie I can attest to that even if I wasn't in the best of health watching it, what stood out the most is just how little information from the solo films you actually needed to understand the movie, in fact there were very few references at all to the past movies that only the die hard like us would have picked up on them. So if there's a lesson here for WB in doing a JL film is to simply do a JL film, don't worry about trying to connect things with solo films or handcuff them when ultimately what transpires in those movie is not going to matter.

[Parker Wayne]

Damn you for being able to watch The Avengers now! :argh:

:oldrazz:

[metaphysician]

*cough* Honestly, I think Thor was the riskier film than Captain America. Captain America is basically pulp adventure in WWII, and that is fairly well trod territory. Thor, OTOH, deals with Kirby cosmic stuff, and tied to the somewhat lesser known Norse mythology ( as opposed to Greek myth ). But that's my take on the matter.

[CConn]

They're both risky in their own ways.

Cap kinda had to deal with being a patriotic american film in an international, not so American patriotic market.

[Ultimatehero]

If by flows nicely you mean they show flash back images to the solo film then.....yeah I guess it does. Avengers is very much a stand alone movie I can attest to that even if I wasn't in the best of health watching it, what stood out the most is just how little information from the solo films you actually needed to understand the movie, in fact there were very few references at all to the past movies that only the die hard like us would have picked up on them. So if there's a lesson here for WB in doing a JL film is to simply do a JL film, don't worry about trying to connect things with solo films or handcuff them when ultimately what transpires in those movie is not going to matter.

Easter eggs are only a part of it. You're talking:

1) Same actors - this means same universe.
2) These characters would have progressed through a certain arc which the JLA film would need to take into account or you'll have them doing two steps forward one step back. That'd stand out.
3) Thor, Cap, and Avengers were all being worked on at the same time. Try to do that with a corporate structure that is more about solo effort than collaboration within and outside of companies under that branch? You'll have them stumbling, thus why WB went the different actors route - this negates the complications.

Everyone here where it comes to combined universes are coming from a fan perspective of what they want to see rather than an in-studio perspective of why those things are near impossible with this structure. Basically it seems most people thinks WB calls all the shots where in fact it's more of a financier to all of it's sub-companies which handles the work. This is the one crucial element everybody is skipping over.

HYPOTHETICAL:

Have a Flash movie, have a Wonderwoman movie, and Justice League movie all going on at the same time. Now imagine the Justice League movie has no idea what the Flash movie or Wonderwoman movie is doing. Now to go further lets say their universes seem drastically different (something MARVEL expertly sewed together, this could have been a wreck) from each other due to their lack of communication. You would have disjointed features trying to create a whole. It wouldn't work for that reason alone.

I first noticed this when I said I knew information about Wonder Woman and posters started jumping on me about the other DC films thinking I'd automatically know about them. People think it's a cohesive everybody under the same roof type set-up when that's far from the truth.

As per AVENGERS looking easy? Anything but. Nobody would say it was easy. Even Joss doesn't say it was easy. Fans say it was. But the number one goal as filmmakers, writers, etc.? Is to make it seem seamless. Is to make it seem easy. It looks easy? You've done your job perfectly. Joss was there when pre-pro was still going on with Thor and Cap. He went with Loki after seeing, if I recall correctly, the script and dailies from Thor. This has been a long-time in the making with several pieces running at once.

The BEST way? Give everything to Legacy. Nolan haters will hate me for saying that. But, truly. Give it all to Legacy. They seem to be churning these films out. And all these films under one company? Then yeah, it would be really easy. PROBLEM IS, contrary to what people here THINK, these properties are NOT under one company - they're under several.

Best way to illustrate this is a television network. Fox has shows from Warner Brothers, Universal, Disney, etc. None of these companies interact with each other despite all being under the Fox name. Now for an instant try to combine all these shows (from multiple studios) into one universe without stumbling. You start to see where the dominos would tumble over. Just because it's under one name doesn't mean the films are under one name.

[ElMariachi]

If by flows nicely you mean they show flash back images to the solo film then.....yeah I guess it does. Avengers is very much a stand alone movie I can attest to that even if I wasn't in the best of health watching it, what stood out the most is just how little information from the solo films you actually needed to understand the movie, in fact there were very few references at all to the past movies that only the die hard like us would have picked up on them. So if there's a lesson here for WB in doing a JL film is to simply do a JL film, don't worry about trying to connect things with solo films or handcuff them when ultimately what transpires in those movie is not going to matter.

I suppose I should rephrase that. It meshes well with Avengers seamlessly. You can watch Captain America and it feels apart of the same universe. The movie feels like a sequel to CA and Thor from what I hear.

Glad that the movie was standalone though. I am jealous of those who have seen it already while we wait another 9 days here in the US!

[Mr. Immortal]

They're both risky in their own ways.

Cap kinda had to deal with being a patriotic american film in an international, not so American patriotic market.

On top of that, the majority of people are into darker stories and characters, especially the teenage demographic. I'm sure we were all there once. It doesn't get anymore Lawful Good Paladin than Cap. I'm shocked TFA that did as well as it did at the box office, but I'm thankful.

Thor, I think, was harder to adapt but easier to market and Cap was the inverse.

I mean really, I was willing to concede that those movies were somewhat safe but with all the great points everyone has brought up I don't even think it's the case. They assessed the mountains of risks and played the odds perfectly and with intelligence. And when it all boils down to it, any year+ project that takes millions of dollars to generate is not safe.

To link it back to the discussion, I think it's possible that films like Superman Returns and Green Lantern were just given too much free reign by the wrong people. Superman Returns, I don't think you can be too hard on. Singer had a great track record.

[jmc]

Easter eggs are only a part of it. You're talking:

1) Same actors - this means same universe.
2) These characters would have progressed through a certain arc which the JLA film would need to take into account or you'll have them doing two steps forward one step back. That'd stand out.
3) Thor, Cap, and Avengers were all being worked on at the same time. Try to do that with a corporate structure that is more about solo effort than collaboration within and outside of companies under that branch? You'll have them stumbling, thus why WB went the different actors route - this negates the complications.

Everyone here where it comes to combined universes are coming from a fan perspective of what they want to see rather than an in-studio perspective of why those things are near impossible with this structure. Basically it seems most people thinks WB calls all the shots where in fact it's more of a financier to all of it's sub-companies which handles the work. This is the one crucial element everybody is skipping over.

HYPOTHETICAL:

Have a Flash movie, have a Wonderwoman movie, and Justice League movie all going on at the same time. Now imagine the Justice League movie has no idea what the Flash movie or Wonderwoman movie is doing. Now to go further lets say their universes seem drastically different (something MARVEL expertly sewed together, this could have been a wreck) from each other due to their lack of communication. You would have disjointed features trying to create a whole. It wouldn't work for that reason alone.

I first noticed this when I said I knew information about Wonder Woman and posters started jumping on me about the other DC films thinking I'd automatically know about them. People think it's a cohesive everybody under the same roof type set-up when that's far from the truth.

As per AVENGERS looking easy? Anything but. Nobody would say it was easy. Even Joss doesn't say it was easy. Fans say it was. But the number one goal as filmmakers, writers, etc.? Is to make it seem seamless. Is to make it seem easy. It looks easy? You've done your job perfectly. Joss was there when pre-pro was still going on with Thor and Cap. He went with Loki after seeing, if I recall correctly, the script and dailies from Thor. This has been a long-time in the making with several pieces running at once.

The BEST way? Give everything to Legacy. Nolan haters will hate me for saying that. But, truly. Give it all to Legacy. They seem to be churning these films out. And all these films under one company? Then yeah, it would be really easy. PROBLEM IS, contrary to what people here THINK, these properties are NOT under one company - they're under several.

Best way to illustrate this is a television network. Fox has shows from Warner Brothers, Universal, Disney, etc. None of these companies interact with each other despite all being under the Fox name. Now for an instant try to combine all these shows (from multiple studios) into one universe without stumbling. You start to see where the dominos would tumble over. Just because it's under one name doesn't mean the films are under one name.

I don't think anyone is saying what Marvel has done was easy, making a film series like this is actually something I can applaud them for attempting, that said the results are what I look at and what I take away from it is that individual universes for each character are the far better option. If it's as difficult as you say for WB to do a similar thing to Marvel, then that's good news to me.

[Ultimatehero]

I don't think anyone is saying what Marvel has done was easy, making a film series like this is actually something I can applaud them for attempting, that said the results are what I look at and what I take away from it is that individual universes for each character are the far better option. If it's as difficult as you say for WB to do a similar thing to Marvel, then that's good news to me.

What I'm saying is the only real possible outcome at this time is a JLA film with different actors from the character's solo film - trying to create the sense in an audience's eyes that the character's film and JLA are two distinct properties.

[Tobias]

What I'm saying is the only real possible outcome at this time is a JLA film with different actors from the character's solo film - trying to create the sense in an audience's eyes that the character's film and JLA are two distinct properties.

Maybe - but TA is getting such incredible reviews, better than TDK, and is possibly poised to beat TDKR at the BO - I think it's equally as likely TA will scare WB away from doing JL. Out of fear and not being able to match what looks like the penultimate superhero film to date.

WB may lay low with Lobo in 2014, another B/C lister in 2015 and go big with Batman in 2016. And then, depending on how these films do, revisit their A listers such as GL and Flash and WW.

Either way, the better TA does the less likely WB will do a JL film anytime soon. IMO. They know, given their history, they just can't compete with Marvel when it comes to comic book films. IMO.

[jmc]

What I'm saying is the only real possible outcome at this time is a JLA film with different actors from the character's solo film - trying to create the sense in an audience's eyes that the character's film and JLA are two distinct properties.

Do you not think keeping the same actors is an option though in an Elseworlds type of film? I understand the argument about 'audience confusion' but I do think you have to give the audience credit to be able to tell that what they're watching clearly isn't related to anything else especially if the look and feel arent the same. Does the set up that WB has lend itself to that kind of scenario at all?

[cronosred]

.

Also, WWII is a very risky subject. Especially when the movie is a PG-13 summer movie and aimed at a global, young audience. The war is still a very touchy subject around the world and Marvel had to be extremely careful on how it was portrayed. You are talking about an American propaganda character in a post-9/11 era of anti-Americanism in a movie where people assume it will portray American winning WWII single-handedly. They had to deal with that and the challenge of not making the movie cheesy. Take a look at the box office returns of WWII movies. It's not an easy sell.



Makes me glad Fox has X-Men since they didn't seem to have near as much of a problem with handling it in X-Men First Class as Marvel did with Captain America.

[Ultimatehero]

Do you not think keeping the same actors is an option though in an Elseworlds type of film? I understand the argument about 'audience confusion' but I do think you have to give the audience credit to be able to tell that what they're watching clearly isn't related to anything else especially if the look and feel arent the same. Does the set up that WB has lend itself to that kind of scenario at all?

Same actors to general audiences = same universe.

Different actors to general audience = different universe.

You are talking about a general audience that thought Batman Begins was a prequel to Burton's Batman. And are asking if Superman will be in 'The Avengers.' Have elseworlds with same actors - their heads are gonna explode from all the confusion. Fans may be smart in these regards. GA is not. :doh:

It is well set up for what the original JLA film was going to be - different actors than those from the main films. Otherwise you'd have confusion. It can not have the same universe. Same universe imposes that you'd need to know where every character is - which means be on the same page - which the set up between studios doesn't offer up.

HOWEVER - as I said - the easiest thing to do is to just create a separate branch or give it to one company already existing. Legacy is the best option. That will have them all on the same page.

[CConn]

Makes me glad Fox has X-Men since they didn't seem to have near as much of a problem with handling it in X-Men First Class as Marvel did with Captain America.
Lol, no. Fox has an awful record at producing superhero movies. FF, DD, X3, Wolverine, terrible.

They just made a good choice in giving it to Vaughan. And letting him do the hard work.

[CConn]

I agree. One my faves and actually the movie that made me wanna read Cap's comics.

I personally would've loved a two hour version of The Ultimates' opening act.
And see, that's what it needed. Even just one scene, a single scene like the one in The Ultimates would've been enough to really set the tone as a serious war film.

Add a couple scenes of actual Nazism, and you'd have a perfect Cap movie.

[jmc]

Same actors to general audiences = same universe.

Different actors to general audience = different universe.

You are talking about a general audience that thought Batman Begins was a prequel to Burton's Batman. And are asking if Superman will be in 'The Avengers.' Have elseworlds with same actors - their heads are gonna explode from all the confusion. Fans may be smart in these regards. GA is not. :doh:

It is well set up for what the original JLA film was going to be - different actors than those from the main films. Otherwise you'd have confusion. It can not have the same universe. Same universe imposes that you'd need to know where every character is - which means be on the same page - which the set up between studios doesn't offer up.

HOWEVER - as I said - the easiest thing to do is to just create a separate branch or give it to one company already existing. Legacy is the best option. That will have them all on the same page.

But the question I have though is that does it really matter if the perception is a shared universe if a JL film works on its own?

[Ultimatehero]

You have to be more specific.

If the question is... can we have the same characters, same universe, yet combine them for a stand-alone film...

DANGER! WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!

You're forgetting that these films are often being constructed at the same exact time. You would need these teams working together to form any kind of stand-alone film. If these characters had zero arcs in their own films? Then yeah, by all means. BUT film does not work that way. Meaning "two-steps-backwards-one-step-forward" mistakes. The arcs would not easily correspond or line up. The Flash at the end of Flash 1 isn't the same Flash he was in the beginning, same for any other character. The Wonder Woman at the end of JLA would not be the same Wonder Woman from Wonder Woman 1, Wonder Woman 2 would need to incorporate this change in character.

People are looking at a much larger picture and not the smaller details in character.

Basically I'm pretty sure you have all seen tv series in which the episodes are out of order making their decisions seem awkward? Well, you'd be running into the same thing here. As a virtual series runner for four years, nevermind the whole screenwriting approach within these companies that I'm working on now, but just that - the whole virtual series experience keeping things such as character arcs over numerous writers and collaborators is an arduous task. One that MARVEL did very well because everyone was highly communicative and there was only one branch. Basically, you'd start thinking these DC films were out of order at some point due to the lack of communication going on with these properties.

It's a web. One that needs weavers. Not people randomly throwing threads.

[jmc]

I'll be a tad more specific then. Is there an option simply to make a series of solos each of which are treated as there own franchise/universe and then using the same actors for a JL that is also treated as its own thing, ie keep it ambiguous any connections.

[Ultimatehero]

No. It would confuse the audience. Studios would never take such a risk. Because in the off-set that the audience believes it's the same universe, things would go bonkers and heads would be spinning in the audience trying to weave everything together. You could say business-wise a lot in the studio system, myself included, distrust the audience but you have to remember there is a reason why we sometimes see them as slow:

Prior beliefs:
1) Batman Begins being a prequel to Tim Burton's 'Batman.'
2) Wondering if Superman will be in 'The Avengers' (some have asked this).
3) List goes on.

Basically people have a tendency to need to place something for it to make sense to them. So these people - all these arcs - none of them aligning would seem like bad filmmaking and bad writing. It would seem thrown together. Thus why it would NEED different actors.

If it's not the same universe anyways, why have the same actors? That one doesn't make sense to me... it's already a different universe, same cast just adds confusion.

And as said, best option is to give it all to one studio. That way it's in communication.

[jmc]

No. It would confuse the audience. Studios would never take such a risk. Because in the off-set that the audience believes it's the same universe, things would go bonkers and heads would be spinning in the audience trying to weave everything together. You could say business-wise a lot in the studio system, myself included, distrust the audience but you have to remember there is a reason why we sometimes see them as slow:

Prior beliefs:
1) Batman Begins being a prequel to Tim Burton's 'Batman.'
2) Wondering if Superman will be in 'The Avengers' (some have asked this).
3) List goes on.

Basically people have a tendency to need to place something for it to make sense to them. So these people - all these arcs - none of them aligning would seem like bad filmmaking and bad writing. It would seem thrown together. Thus why it would NEED different actors.

If it's not the same universe anyways, why have the same actors? That one doesn't make sense to me... it's already a different universe, same cast just adds confusion.

And as said, best option is to give it all to one studio. That way it's in communication.

Yeah, but what risk is there in ambiguity? If the film is good what difference does it make?

[Ultimatehero]

If you're talking two universes with one set of actors? A HUGE risk. There wouldn't be any same page there and it would be more confusing than trying to work within the system they have now.

In order to have a good film you need good characters. In order to have good characters you need to know the characters. You can't have characters zig-zagging and jumping all over the place. People are saying, "look to Avengers - it seems so easy! It's stand-alone." Not really. Look at the smaller details already just in character. THAT? Is perfect. It shouldn't seem difficult. It should seem flawless and remarkably easy to compose. But in order to make it seem easy to do - you have to really hit it out of the park. That's why it's getting great reviews. It just feels natural, which is not easy to accomplish.

You can't naturally have something natural. Thus an odd-I don't even know what to call it mixture but not mixture JLA film would leave heads scratching.

[Dangerman]

On top of that, the majority of people are into darker stories and characters, especially the teenage demographic. I'm sure we were all there once. It doesn't get anymore Lawful Good Paladin than Cap. I'm shocked TFA that did as well as it did at the box office, but I'm thankful.

Thor, I think, was harder to adapt but easier to market and Cap was the inverse.

I mean really, I was willing to concede that those movies were somewhat safe but with all the great points everyone has brought up I don't even think it's the case. They assessed the mountains of risks and played the odds perfectly and with intelligence. And when it all boils down to it, any year+ project that takes millions of dollars to generate is not safe.

To link it back to the discussion, I think it's possible that films like Superman Returns and Green Lantern were just given too much free reign by the wrong people. Superman Returns, I don't think you can be too hard on. Singer had a great track record.I love how people like to talk about Superman Returns like it did bad and everyone hated the movie when that is far from the truth. Superman Returns did good at the box office seeing that it was a superhero movie that had little to no action and was a sequel to a 20 year old movie. Not to mention it got great reviews by not only the critics but fans as well. Also it did better than Batman Begins box office wise (another movie which almost got rebooted twice because of "poor box office results"). The problem with Superman Returns was that the general public liked the movie while the WB felt they should have loved it. And that was the real issue. Superman Returns did make it's money back and it was suppose to get a sequel and the WB tried to get it off the ground however a lot of factors played into not having a sequel mainly the court case and the strike where the original Justice League script was suppose to tie BB and SR together. Once again as I tell people had SR opened two to three weeks earlier or in the winter you would have seen a much different box office result in its favor and a sequel by now. No one expected POTC to be as big as it was.

[Mr. Immortal]

I love how people like to talk about Superman Returns like it did bad and everyone hated the movie when that is far from the truth. Superman Returns did good at the box office seeing that it was a superhero movie that had little to no action and was a sequel to a 20 year old movie. Not to mention it got great reviews by not only the critics but fans as well. Also it did better than Batman Begins box office wise (another movie which almost got rebooted twice because of "poor box office results"). The problem with Superman Returns was that the general public liked the movie while the WB felt they should have loved it. And that was the real issue. Superman Returns did make it's money back and it was suppose to get a sequel and the WB tried to get it off the ground however a lot of factors played into not having a sequel mainly the court case and the strike where the original Justice League script was suppose to tie BB and SR together. Once again as I tell people had SR opened two to three weeks earlier or in the winter you would have seen a much different box office result in its favor and a sequel by now. No one expected POTC to be as big as it was.

I don't disagree with a single thing you said, and what you said doesn't really go against what I stated either. Singer behind the helm of Superman was supposed to be incredible. It was just okay.

But to be fair, it's also one of those movies that's executed with such a singular, precise vision that if someone were to go ''That's my favorite movie'' I wouldn't really think twice about it. It's not a bad movie, just not what anyone expected.

[jmc]

If you're talking two universes with one set of actors? A HUGE risk. There wouldn't be any same page there and it would be more confusing than trying to work within the system they have now.

In order to have a good film you need good characters. In order to have good characters you need to know the characters. You can't have characters zig-zagging and jumping all over the place. People are saying, "look to Avengers - it seems so easy! It's stand-alone." Not really. Look at the smaller details already just in character. THAT? Is perfect. It shouldn't seem difficult. It should seem flawless and remarkably easy to compose. But in order to make it seem easy to do - you have to really hit it out of the park. That's why it's getting great reviews. It just feels natural, which is not easy to accomplish.

You can't naturally have something natural. Thus an odd-I don't even know what to call it mixture but not mixture JLA film would leave heads scratching.

I'm talking about an ambiguous universe, ie all film are simply made with no connecting tissue.

[Ultimatehero]

Dude, all I'll say is simply impossible or you'd have remarkably bad film making.

So WWII is going to have no connection to WWI or WWIII? Same with the others?

Now, let's say you have a JLA movie thrown into the middle. That's not going to have WW in a consistent arc of character consistent with the other now unconnected WW films with just the name in common?

Film is about change, not about the plot getting shook up. Franchises are about following a character's journey of change. Not having change leads to not really having a purpose.

[CConn]

Dude, all I'll say is simply impossible or you'd have remarkably bad film making.

So WWII is going to have no connection to WWI or WWIII? Same with the others?

Now, let's say you have a JLA movie thrown into the middle. That's not going to have WW in a consistent arc of character consistent with the other now unconnected WW films with just the name in common?

Film is about change, not about the plot getting shook up. Franchises are about following a character's journey of change. Not having change leads to not really having a purpose.
Dammit. I had an incredible post typed out and I lost it.

Suffice it to say, you're wrong. A movie series doesn't have to be about a continuity-based progression or story arc. You could simply have a series of standalone films that each address a different aspect of the character's personality or psyche.

A good example would be Burton's Batman and Batman Returns. There were very few plot lines carried over in those films, and they were both still very good. You could do something similar with Wonder Woman, Flash, or any other character.

[metaphysician]

Dammit. I had an incredible post typed out and I lost it.

Suffice it to say, you're wrong. A movie series doesn't have to be about a continuity-based progression or story arc. You could simply have a series of standalone films that each address a different aspect of the character's personality or psyche.

A good example would be Burton's Batman and Batman Returns. There were very few plot lines carried over in those films, and they were both still very good. You could do something similar with Wonder Woman, Flash, or any other character.

For that to work, though, the characters themselves have to remain constant. Which means we, again, run into the problem of discontinuity between the solo movies and the JLA movie.

[Mr. Immortal]

Speaking of shared universes though, I'm curious about everybody's opinion. For me personally, the shared universe aspect has actually made all of the Marvel Studios' films more enjoyable as the universe itself grew. Save for CA: TFA, which was pretty isolated and I couldn't possibly have a higher opinion of anyway, the other movies were heightened in my subsequent viewings.

Iron Man II specifically didn't sit well with me the first time I saw it because it felt too much part of a shared universe, though I didn't dislike it at all. Suddenly though you have Coulson saying he's going to New Mexico, Thor coming out later, Hawkeye showing up, Avengers Initiate being discussed, and it has kind of a episodic feel.

I could see why initially someone's thinking ''that's terrible, a movie should stand completely on it's own''. But, here's a good metaphor: People generally say books are better, shows are better, etc. and I think we're all in agreement that those statements are generally true because those mediums give so much more time to flesh out the characters, develop stories and have the potential to continue endlessly so you can discuss with your friends/ponder it's future. Unlike a movie where more often than not, you'll never see those characters again.

So if you think of the MS movies as episodic in nature, I actually think it makes them better. I think if DC ever attempted a shared universe they could really build up some steam by the time a second movie hits.

EDIT: Typing all that out makes me think they shouldn't give up on acknowledging Green Lantern in the future.

[jmc]

Dude, all I'll say is simply impossible or you'd have remarkably bad film making.

So WWII is going to have no connection to WWI or WWIII? Same with the others?

Now, let's say you have a JLA movie thrown into the middle. That's not going to have WW in a consistent arc of character consistent with the other now unconnected WW films with just the name in common?

Film is about change, not about the plot getting shook up. Franchises are about following a character's journey of change. Not having change leads to not really having a purpose.

I'm saying just make the damn movies. You think people have gotten bent out of shape because Jame Bond films have remained inconsistent over the years? Just make the effing movies, I don't care how connected the sequels are to one and other, be like Nolan and just make the movie good, if it's good people will come. The only ones who get bent out of shape with contradictions and retcons are fanboys. I don't give a **** about long drawn out sagas that have been planned for years, I don't give a **** if this film connects with that one, I care about the film at hand and if Hollywood would focus on doing that instead of producing ******** pieces of blockbuster year after year trying to find their next merchandising product maybe we'd actually get some quality big budget cinema.

[Dangerman]

I don't disagree with a single thing you said, and what you said doesn't really go against what I stated either. Singer behind the helm of Superman was supposed to be incredible. It was just okay.

But to be fair, it's also one of those movies that's executed with such a singular, precise vision that if someone were to go ''That's my favorite movie'' I wouldn't really think twice about it. It's not a bad movie, just not what anyone expected.
Agreed it wasn't a movie of what some expected. I personally loved the movie and think it gave us one of the best Superman movies and stories to date. But in the same I also thought it was flawed in some areas and had Singer not cut the movie like how he did and left it untouched like how the shooting script showed I think it would have been much better. Because then you see how dark and evil and smart Lex Luthor really was and gave purpose to Kal Penn person as well. It also expanded on Superman and the whole theme behind the movie. Because of time a lot of it was cut.

But still I don't think it should be grouped in there with Green Lantern or Superman III and IV. It was not as bad as a movie as few would like to make it out to be.

[Ultimatehero]

Bond is a rare exception, Batman many would argue focus was on the villains. JMC your post shows no sense of logic - it takes a long time to make a quality product. Fans are the slow ones thinking film making is an instant art, THAT is how junk is made. Churned out with no thought. I mean, are you for real??? And Nolan? His films ARE consistent. Another thing beyond awkward and nonsenical in your post. There's a reason why there's years between franchise films DESPITE having the game plan YEARS before the first film. It's not "instant gratification" - THAT is how junk is made. So quit "we want it now" and understand thought is going into MAKING IT GOOD. THAT is what's taking time - something good they all agree with, one thing that complicates it - no other reason. And if JLA, need DIFFERENT cast to maintain a sense of unity or as said give it all to one company (No, WB is MULTIPLE companies) so it can be done easily but that is NOT the hold up just an explanation of why DC as is right now can't really have the connectedness that Marvel has.

Basically two points you need to learn JMC:

1) Quality films take time to make, bad blockbusters are spit out at a fast pace.

2) WB with these is a hydra three headed beast. Something needs to win over all three heads to get made (concerning DC products). As said that's the main complication.

You just seem to want a jumbled DC universe than a thought out one with JLA, which as said - is much easier to get quality with different cast or have all DC at one company than "screw it, throw random parts into a blender, hope something good comes of it." There is a much more profitable and quality efficent way to do it that is also faster.

[The Guard]

Captain America is more than a genetically engineered soldier. He is a propaganda character, a relic of the past, and pretty much a boy scout. We really haven't seen anything like this. Surely nothing that could be considered a summer tentpole. Characters like Captain America or Superman are difficult to pull off these days because audiences expect characters like Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, Han Solo, Indiana Jones, Wolverine, James Bond, Jack Sparrow, Peter Parker, etc.

I'm boiling this down to general concepts. I know what Captain America is. Work with me a little here.

Here's what you said

Captain America and Thor are difficult characters to adapt for movies and audiences. Allowing these iffy concepts/fringe characters to become even more unusual/bizarre could have easily blown up in Marvel's face"

You said this, implying that A, he is difficult to adapt, and that B, he is an iffy/fringe character, IE, something outside the norm people are used to. But he's not.

We really haven't seen anything like this.

Except we have, because we've seen previous Captain America adaptions. In previous Captain America movies, serials, cartoons, etc. Recently, we have not seen a superhero movie featuring these elements, no. But if that's your argument, that we haven't seen a Summer tentpole movie featuring Captain America, well, obviously, no, we have not. Before CAPTAIN AMERICA, we'd not seen a Captain America movie since 1990.

But let's look at what he actually is, an whether we've seen this in film and TV recently.

-He is a good man/boyscout. That is not a new concept. Superman is the most shining example of this, but there have been other characters with these traits on film, TV, etc, for a long time.
-He is a genetically engineered soldier. That is also not a new concept. Again, this is something we see on film and TV fairly often.
-He is patriotic propaganda. That is not a new concept either, not is it a particularly difficult one to grasp, even overseas, where it may not be as appreciated, but can certainly be understood. Again, Superman could fall into this category, as could any number of solider, government and police characters seen on film and TV over the years.

I'll give you that "relic of the past" element is a bit new, but lets not pretend that the lion's share of the movie revolved around that theme. His role in THE AVENGERS supposedly does.

Yes, Captain America is a unique superhero. But he's still a superhero, made up of identifiable concepts that people have been exposed to many times, and responded to favorably. Captain America didn't become wildly popular over the years because he wasn't relatable or easy to understand. He became popular because a lot of people like him because he is, and because he is interesting.

Characters like Captain America or Superman are difficult to pull off these days because audiences expect characters like Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, Han Solo, Indiana Jones, Wolverine, James Bond, Jack Sparrow, Peter Parker, etc.

Ok...you just listed a variety of popular characters, some dark, some lighter. I have no idea what your point was in doing that. So...audiences expect a range of darker and lighter characters? Doesn't that bode well for Captain America in general, who ideally treads on both sides? What was your point in listing those names?

Also, WWII is a very risky subject. Especially when the movie is a PG-13 summer movie and aimed at a global, young audience. The war is still a very touchy subject around the world and Marvel had to be extremely careful on how it was portrayed.

You are talking about an American propaganda character in a post-9/11 era of anti-Americanism in a movie where people assume it will portray American winning WWII single-handedly. They had to deal with that and the challenge of not making the movie cheesy. Take a look at the box office returns of WWII movies. It's not an easy sell.

Your argument seems to be that WWII is a risky subject...when it's a Captain America Summer tentpole movie. I'm honestly not sure what you're basing that on. Obviously it's not that touchy a subject, because it made a ton of money, being just that.

You know what else is a touchy subject? Genetic experimentation. Playing God. The abuse of power. And yet people respond to these subjects with interest thoughout sci-fi, horror and fantasy adaption history.

WWII has been a risk and a fascination with various cultures. That can't really be denied. Boring, derivative WWII projects are a risk. Absolutely.

But the Indiana Jones movies featured Nazis, HELLBOY featured Nazis...

SCHINDLER'S LIST made $321 million worldwide on a $22 million budget

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN made $481 million on a budget of $70 million.

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS made $321 million on a budget of $70 million.

And in some ways, its even more a testament to the idea that people respond to well made/fun WWII films because some of these WERE "R" rated films, which tend to make less money.

THE ROCKETEER made some money even though it wasn't terribly well made.
No, these movies were not Captain America.

It seems to me, that if WWII movies are very well made, and include good drama, or fun elements, then people tend to show up.

Marvel should be given high praise for it's success. It is the most difficult superhero to pull off and they did a great job with it. The movie was a hit, got pretty high praise, and from what I hear, flows nicely into Avengers.

In your opinion he's the most difficult superhero to pull off. In mine, an American propaganda character that is such a boyscout that he has fewer moral gray areas in many versions is infinitely easier to pull off than say, The Punisher, or the X-Men, or Thor or Iron Man or The Hulk. I'm aware of the requirements in adapting Captain America, but they don't make adapting him any more impossible or difficult than adapting any other character.

There's always going to be risk to a big budget tentpole film. I'm not denying that. But that's not a good reason to "gloss over" what was happening in the world the time, which was what Captain America more or less did, or to shy away from those themes. I enjoyed the movie. and I have given Marvel praise for its success. I feel that it could have, and can, do better.

Those aren't quite on the same level as CA.

You're right, they aren't Captain America itself. And few things have been, because few things have been 2011's CAPTAIN AMERICA. But they are on the same level in terms of concept. Characters audiences aren't familiar with getting a bigger budget.

THE FANTASTIC FOUR certainly is on the same level. Most people didn't even know who The Fantastic Four were, and certainly not as well as Captain America. Yet it got a $100 million budget, which at the time, was comparable to Captain America's $150 million now, as superhero movies cost a bit less to make back then.

Captain America was Marvel's big movie and a key cog to the Avengers. The rest of those movies were financed by major studios without really that much risk.

You don't think DAREDEVIL was a risk? THE PUNISHER? GHOST RIDER? HELLBOY, BLADE and SPAWN Apparently "much risk" means they didn't put up as much money. It's not quite that simple conceptually, though.

Norse mythology is unique to the big screen compared to Greek mythology. Aside from Beowulf, what other live action movies come to mind? The notion of Asgard and Norse gods living in the same universe as us is a bizarre concept for most people. You may not remember but there was alot of people doubting they could even pull this off and the movie not being horrible.

Yes, its unique in that Norse Mythology is not Green Mythology, and that Norse Mythology is less exposed, sure. I'm really not going to get into this nonsensical "That's not the same!" thing you're doing. Mythology is ultimately mythology. There have been adaptions of both. Norse mythology has been onscreen before. The 13th Warrior was pretty good. There have been more than a few movies about vikings, warriors, several Beowulf/Grendel adaptions, and I think that How To Train Your Dragon was Norse-inspired.

The notion of Asgard and Norse gods living in the same universe as us is a bizarre concept for most people. You may not remember but there was alot of people doubting they could even pull this off and the movie not being horrible.

Yes, it is a bizarre concept. But audiences tend to LIKE a lot of the bizarre concepts. They respond to them. People don't go to blockbuster movies to see everyday life. They go to see bizarre or interesting concepts.

Oh no, I recall that. I don't why anyone would doubt they'd be able to pull this off. The approach was fairly safe. The director was fantastic. The cast was very good. And the comics have pulled off these stories for years, as have other Thor/Norse adaptions.

This whole safe/unsafe thing is completely ridiculous. Almost all movies have 'safe' plot points. The Dark Knight included and certainly every other superhero movie. You are splitting hairs here.

I don't think it is ridiculous. There's a clear difference in the creative approach taken with certain films. It's kind of been you that's splitting hairs. Trying to boil down everything I say into "but that's different".

There's a very clear creative approach in The DARK KNIGHT that isn't as safe and generic as other films. That's just not arguable. Ditto SUPERMAN RETURNS, X-MEN, and several other recent superhero films.

CAPTAIN AMERICA cannot boast this. It presents fairly obvious morality, little villain depth, little exploration of its core concepts, and is mostly focused on
story and action after the initial third of the film.

I personally don't think it's a 'safe' plot having Norse gods travelling to the earth via wormholes. To the general audience, it's still a pretty silly concept. Nor do I think anything regarding the scenes in Asgard are 'safe'.

That's not a plot, though. That's an event within the plot.

THOR was a superhero movie featuring stylized adaptions of Norse gods. In context, the wormhole is nothing more than a plot device.

Aliens, life in other parts of the universe, mythological gods and superheroes...these things themselves are no longer "unsafe" concepts in film.

Simply using them doesn't make for a deep or film. They are very accepted in fantasy, sci fi, and myth, and have been widely used for a long time.

Likewise, the concept of wormholes has existed in both science and Sci Fi for a long time. STAR TREK, STARGATE, Justice League, etc. It's a somewhat unique concept, but it's not so out there that it would make people question anything, or so odd that it challenges anything.

And that's where THOR is safe. There's nothing in the movie that challenges social convention or audience expectations except what happens with Thor and Jane at the end. If THOR had featured Loki coming to Earth and say, actually killing a ton of people, then it wouldn't have been as safe. It would have pushed a boundary to a point.

But the basic plot is about a man/superhero redeeming himself and taking responsibility for his life so he can reach his full potential, because he was arrogant and failed his friends and family and kingdom. That is not terribly unique. It is a very safe approach to characterization. We've seen it before.
And executionwise, it's all handled rather safely. There is very little question about who is right or wrong in the film. No true moral gray areas. Thor finds out that he was wrong to be so arrogant, and that he has to use his power responsibility. And there's a son who hates this father because he was lied to and turns evil because of it, and because he's jealous. And Thor has to fight him, because its right. And it still works, and well. Its entertaining, and theres a lot to like about it. And it's safe.

Let me ask...what, besides wormholes, do you feel is so unsafe about it?

That's the characters story arc. You start changing too much and it begins to look stupid. Captain America has to be a weakling that turns into a peak human being. He has to freeze and sleep in a block of ice for decades. Not having those two aspects of his character would be like Spider-Man not getting bit, Bruce Wayne's parents being alive, and Iron Man not building his suit in captivity

I'm not advocating the character's story arc it to be changed much, I'm advocating for it to be explored with a little more depth. I'm pointing out that fans knowing what is going to happen with Captain America is not a "problem" in adapting the character, and not an appropriate excuse for the movie being made predictable and safe.

cough* Honestly, I think Thor was the riskier film than Captain America. Captain America is basically pulp adventure in WWII, and that is fairly well trod territory. Thor, OTOH, deals with Kirby cosmic stuff, and tied to the somewhat lesser known Norse mythology ( as opposed to Greek myth ). But that's my take on the matter.

I would agree. THOR is a more unique and culturally complex concept, with more fantastic elements. And it was a deeper and more interesting film than CAPTAIN AMERICA in many respects.

I mean really, I was willing to concede that those movies were somewhat safe but with all the great points everyone has brought up I don't even think it's the case. They assessed the mountains of risks and played the odds perfectly and with intelligence. And when it all boils down to it, any year+ project that takes millions of dollars to generate is not safe.

There's a difference between "easy" and "safe".

I'm not talking about the challenges or the risk of making a movie, but in handling the creative material. While I don't think it's the most difficult thing in the world to do, I would never call that process easy. You need talent, good collaboration, and more than a little luck. "Safe" refers to an actual approach to characterization, themes explored, and story points.

And see, that's what it needed. Even just one scene, a single scene like the one in The Ultimates would've been enough to really set the tone as a serious war film.

Agreed. The war montage was nice, but there needed to be something that set the stakes beyond "Oh no, Hydra may continue to exist". Not just "We're at war". Why do they have to WIN the war? Why is it different, in context, than any other war? Because The Red Skull and Hydra will take over? Why? What does he want to DO? How does that intersect with the concept of the perfect man, with Captain America's very nature? What does it mean for Steve Rogers to become a soldier, other than just becoming a soldier?

I don't think we'd be having some of these debates if both Marvel and DC fans would just admit the following

1.All films have cliche elements, and superhero films have expected elements. Cliche can be executed well, so that it feels fresh and less "generic", but many films don't.

2. The Marvel Studios films have tended to be relatively straighforward and safe, with less introspection, but have still been rather satisfying and very fun.

3. The WB/DC films have been tended bit more introspective in their character explorations, but in some ways, have suffered for not being as faithful or action-oriented/fun.

4. A balance of the two approaches would be amazing for most fans.

There seems to be a reluctance to be honest about these films on both sides. I honestly don't care which company makes better films. I want great films across the board. I want filmmakers to learn from each other.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that all of DC's films, and even other Marvel superhero films, have got flaws. Chris Nolan's Batman films and the X-Men movies could be more faithful, and more subtle, and would be better for it. SUPERMAN RETURNS didn't focus on what really makes the character interesting. GREEN LANTERN could be a lot more serious and structured better. WATCHMEN could have been less dour. CAPTAIN AMERICA and THOR (and likely THE AVENGERS) could have been a little deeper.

[Mr. Immortal]

:doh: Guard, I'll make this is as simple as I can.

List the amount of popular non-children movies in the past 20 years that featured a by-the-book true blue clean cut lawful good paladin main character.

Now list the amount of popular non-children movies in the past 20 years that featured a morally gray rebel badass willing to break the rules main character.

Is something clicking in there? God, I hope so. Clean cut heroes have been accepted before, but in this particular climate of movie making they ARE a hard sell. It is not debatable. Stop arguing. Accept that fact. You know it.

[The Guard]

In order to have a good film you need good characters. In order to have good characters you need to know the characters. You can't have characters zig-zagging and jumping all over the place. People are saying, "look to Avengers - it seems so easy! It's stand-alone." Not really. Look at the smaller details already just in character. THAT? Is perfect. It shouldn't seem difficult. It should seem flawless and remarkably easy to compose. But in order to make it seem easy to do - you have to really hit it out of the park. That's why it's getting great reviews. It just feels natural, which is not easy to accomplish.

It may not be easy. But it is possible.

If you need to know the characters, then write characters who can be known, be it in solo movies or in a JLA film. Plenty of esemble films have had good characters without having to have had previous solo movies to introduce these very easy, relatable concepts.

For that to work, though, the characters themselves have to remain constant. Which means we, again, run into the problem of discontinuity between the solo movies and the JLA movie

So have them remain constant. Or at least similar.

I'm saying just make the damn movies. You think people have gotten bent out of shape because Jame Bond films have remained inconsistent over the years? Just make the effing movies, I don't care how connected the sequels are to one and other, be like Nolan and just make the movie good, if it's good people will come. The only ones who get bent out of shape with contradictions and retcons are fanboys. I don't give a **** about long drawn out sagas that have been planned for years, I don't give a **** if this film connects with that one, I care about the film at hand and if Hollywood would focus on doing that instead of producing ******** pieces of blockbuster year after year trying to find their next merchandising product maybe we'd actually get some quality big budget cinema.

This. Make them, and make them well, as as in FIRST CLASS, and general audiences aren't going to care that Xavier can walk past a certain point in his life in X3, and isn't in FIRST CLASS's canon. Fans are going to *****, but fans will ALWAYS ***** about one thing or another.

I'll be a tad more specific then. Is there an option simply to make a series of solos each of which are treated as there own franchise/universe and then using the same actors for a JL that is also treated as its own thing, ie keep it ambiguous any connections. No. It would confuse the audience. Studios would never take such a risk. Because in the off-set that the audience believes it's the same universe, things would go bonkers and heads would be spinning in the audience trying to weave everything together. You could say business-wise a lot in the studio system, myself included, distrust the audience but you have to remember there is a reason why we sometimes see them as slow:

WB considered doing just that, though. Yes, they backed off it, but the concept was considered.

Some audiences are slow. Some people are stupid, or simply lack knowledge about a particular story or character. But...audiences can't figure out that Batman is Batman, and Superman is Superman, because a different actor is playing them?

Sure, some people will be confused, but, like the questions surrounding BATMAN BEGINS, SUPERMAN RETURNS/MAN OF STEEL, and the SPIDER-MAN reboot, people will eventually figure it out.

That these are characters, that each story with a character is a different story involving that character, and that the actors playing them are actors playing the characters, and that more than one actor can represent the character.

Otherwise, why is WB risking MAN OF STEEL after SUPERMAN RETURNS, and not casting Brandon Routh?

Prior beliefs:
1) Batman Begins being a prequel to Tim Burton's 'Batman.'

Due to Chris Nolan's need to be secretive, and a lack of knowing that it wasn't. For a while, even fans weren't sure. So you show that it isn't. They found out it wasn't, and those with critical thinking skills have no issues now.

2) Wondering if Superman will be in 'The Avengers' (some have asked this).

Due to a lack of knowledge about what The Avengers are. So you show that he isn't, and you show what The Avengers are. Problem solved. Not that this was ever actually a tangible problem to begin with.

You can't naturally have something natural. Thus an odd-I don't even know what to call it mixture but not mixture JLA film would leave heads scratching. [/'quote]

So create something natural.

Surely there were kids who watched the animated JUSTICE LEAGUE and JUSTICE LEAGUE UNLIMITED shows. Does JUSTICE LEAGUE: CRISIS ON TWO EARTHS or JUSTICE LEAGUE: DOOM or now leave them scratching their heads over what's going.

I doubt it. Because people know it's still the Justice League. And that it's a story about the Justice League.

And those that can't figure this kind of thing out, the ones that lack the critical thinking skills to grasp the obvious...I'm not terribly concerned about tailoring the film to them, and neither should a major studio be. People go see things because they like the concept, or because they're told to.

[quote]Maybe - but TA is getting such incredible reviews, better than TDK, and is possibly poised to beat TDKR at the BO - I think it's equally as likely TA will scare WB away from doing JL. Out of fear and not being able to match what looks like the penultimate superhero film to date.

They won't look at it in a vaccuum. If THE AVENGERS does big business and THE DARK KNIGHT cleans up again...I fully expect WB to consider both solo and JLA films ASAP. Which they've already been doing.

The goal to a DC universe should be getting the heroes out there, and in the case of a JLA film, together, and then secondarily, to avoiding confusing people as much as possible, but that shouldn't be the only creative focus.

This "Elseworlds" thing, the idea of characters coming from other dimensions or other "univeses" is a bad idea. Will confuse people. Because its needlessly complex.

Nor do I see any need to copy Marvel's "Here's Fury to draw them together as a team", "here's an item that can figure into the next film" approach, or a need to introduce supporting characters in each film. It's not neccessary.

WB doesn't need Amanda Waller to form the JLA, and doesn't need The Spear of Destiny to factor into several films, or to have a hero show up in another heroe's film. And Marvel's gotten there first, so it's more or less Marvel's plan and Marvel's domain. So WB should do something different.

If what Ultimatehero is saying is true, and its really that hard to get all the companies on the same page to make a shared universe, then don't even mess with it.

This is the point where some common sense has to come into play.

Marvel tried something, and it worked. WB is probably not going to want to wait to make solo films, then make AVENGERS type money.

They will want AVENGERS type money as soon as possible.

So they will probably make a JUSTICE LEAGUE film/franchise a reality very soon. And if that is a smash hit, we will see solo movies.

Regardless of which comes first, solo films or a Justice League movie, it would be easier just to make solo films that don't confirm or deny whether there are other heroes existing in their respective worlds, becuase honestly, it shouldn't MATTER that much. If the story being told doesnt involve two heroes meeting, then it should not matter whether "Themyscira" exists somewhere else when Batman is worried about what's going on in Gotham City. It's missing the point entirely to focus on such things. And there has to be some kind of focus, or creatively, the movies are going to be messy.

Whether its mentioned as containing other heroes or not, Wonder Woman's world is still her world, just as my reality is mine, and someone else's is someone else's.

And whether they're played by different actors or not, propertly executed, Superman is Superman. Batman is Batman.

Different writers/actors/directors wil always produce variances in the characters, but the characters are still the characters. Fans have seen different writers and artists work on characters over the years, and they're still the characters. Why can't that work for the movie franchises?

The fan need to compartmentalize things into "universes" is one of the worst things to come out of superhero comics and films. Why can't a story about Batman be a story about Batman?

[Bruce_Begins]

I would prefer a Justice League team of only Five superheros (Superman, Batman, Wonder woman, Flash and Green Lantern.) as Seven superheroes just make it look ridiculous.

Now, out of these Five I think Superman, Batman and Green Lantern are already well known, their origins are well known, the characters need no introduction. Wonder Woman is also fairly recognized character.

So, only team member that needs a solo movie is Flash, after that WB can just make a Justice League movie. (WW can have a prequel movie later, if JL proves to be successful.)

[roach]

look there is more than one way to skin this cat...they can do it as Marvel did and build up to the event movie...or build from it
Imagine a JL movie that showcases the seven main heroes and then build up the hype for solo movies.....think of Avengers, from all reports Hulk steals the show...there will be a lot of hype for a Hulk solo movie

[The Guard]

Guard, I'll make this is as simple as I can.

List the amount of popular non-children movies in the past 20 years that featured a by-the-book true blue clean cut lawful good paladin main character.

Now list the amount of popular non-children movies in the past 20 years that featured a morally gray rebel badass willing to break the rules main character.

Is something clicking in there? God, I hope so. Clean cut heroes have been accepted before, but in this particular climate of movie making they ARE a hard sell. It is not debatable. Stop arguing. Accept that fact. You know it.

Never said being a boyscout was common. Just that we'd seen these types of characters.

I'm well aware that people embrace morally gray characters, and that the majority of fims feature morally gray characters and situations to a degree.

I haven't seen audiences outright reject morally absolute characters. There just haven't been many movies centering on them made, period, for a long time. The two major franchises that I can think of, Superman and Captain America, have been very popular for the most part.

But moral, upstanding characters? PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL. LORD OF THE RINGS has Frodo and Sam. I think it can be argued that HARRY POTTER's a bit of a Boy Scout. As is SPIDER-MAN. Sam Witwicky in TRANSFORMERS is a decent sort of fellow. You've got Cyclops in X-MEN.

And TRAINING DAY, TRAFFIC and THE DEPARTED feature by the book characters.

Frankly, ALL superheroes tend to be morally gray, because they are willing to go outside the law to do what they consider right. Because by nature, supeheroes aren't boyscouts. They're lawbreaking vigilantes.

[Ultimatehero]

By that I meant the amount of work it took into bringing them all together. The most striking would have been Iron Man and Thor. They solved this with magic equates technology for instance. Tone is a major one they kept in line while allowing solo films to seem drastically different. That took work.

Constant signals no change. Also keep in mind neither Bond nor Batman really have ever had a key supporting cast (outside of just 'functions' or 'foils'). That's another key area where these properties differ. Or at least when talking Burton's Batman. Similar - yes, but again to be similar you need to be in communication. Main reason why it's easier to just do a stand-alone JLA film.

When saying "make them!" that's beyond simplifying things. Films take a long time. DC properties take an even longer time because anyone approaching them is facing a hydra lol. That's a challenge even Hercules had difficulty with.

Guard you're mishearing what J wanted - same actors for different interpretations of said character. Meaning an actor playing the character in Earth One and Earth Two for instance (unsure if I got that right, don't have that much knowledge lol - but I think that comparison works). Audiences would easily know it's the character with two different actors playing them. What they would have difficulty with is understanding an actor playing two DIFFERENT INCARNATIONS of said character, they'd think it's the same version. I was the one saying different actors for different variations on said character. J was saying same actors for different variations - unless you think audiences can really get elseworlds in the film world? Even there we have different looking characters due to artist shake-ups. Basically have Keaton in all variations of Batman - now tell audiences that despite them all being played by Keaton, the films don't have anything in common. I can't even get my head wrapped around that one. It would seem like a mess.

Read the above. And tell me you're not baffled by the Keaton idea.

Making a Justice League movie is easy. Combining universes isn't. And using the same actor for TWO VARIATIONS that have NOTHING in common? Yeah, audiences (think Keaton example) probably would feel dizzy. This is why it's best to use different actors for different incarnations of said character - in other words two actors playing Batman, rather than one and telling them all his Batman films have nothing in common. That's why I kept bringing their previous attempt up because in-company model, that's the most efficient way currently to do it and why they were going to do it that way.

What Ultimatehero is saying IS true. I have first-hand knowledge man.

EXACTLY. The best means to go and the easiest is one film universe is about the JLA the other film universe is these characters solo. As it stands - combining them would just make a mess of things. But, you can easily have two film universes going on at the same time and the audience won't get confused (just two universes, same actor - yeah, even I'm confused on how that would work (Keaton example)).

IF WB sets it all up at company then and only then could a combined universe JLA film be really possible. Because then you can keep all the decks in check. Not tying them along. But making sure the character progression remains at a constant - here you're also dealing with supporting characters that progress and not just the hero (as said another key difference from Bond and Burton's Batman). Starting with JLA - you'd still be entering the same problem with JLA2 just later on, thus the need of either option 1 or option 2. It's a great idea in theory UNTIL JLA 2.

Hey, Guard, I'm the one guy saying have JLA and the solo films exist separately with nothing similar except for the character as option 1. Option 2 being bring all the characters together under one company (which confuses people because they see WB as just one company, when in fact it's several) so progression will seem natural - not for them to be linked together, not needed. MARVEL that's easy because that's how the MARVEL universe works, not the same with DC - so there it's just a matter of character progression needing to be consistent especially since there are key supporting characters. All other options are zany and not really looking at the business-end of things.

[CConn]

For that to work, though, the characters themselves have to remain constant. Which means we, again, run into the problem of discontinuity between the solo movies and the JLA movie.
How do they have to remain consistent? :confused:

[metaphysician]

How do they have to remain consistent? :confused:

Because your trying to leverage a status quo setup. If the movies are not dependent on dramatic progression for the main character, because said main character is a fixed center point, with plot happening to him? Then he actually has to be a fixed center point; there has to be an actual status quo to abide to.

The main character either has to have consistent character development, or he has to have a consistent fixed characterization. If not either, than your really not even dealing with a single character anymore.

[Ultimatehero]

Because your trying to leverage a status quo setup. If the movies are not dependent on dramatic progression for the main character, because said main character is a fixed center point, with plot happening to him? Then he actually has to be a fixed center point; there has to be an actual status quo to abide to.

The main character either has to have consistent character development, or he has to have a consistent fixed characterization. If not either, than your really not even dealing with a single character anymore.

Exactly. People saying start with JLA then, you're forgetting what happens once JLA 2 rolls about or just have only ONE JLA film - business wise that's not a good move. Plus, you'd be skipping the origins - it would be better for just two film universes because of that in my fan opinion. Gotta see things from a business and fan perspective. People may hate the business perspective, but personally find it similarly as fascinating.

[Tobias]

I would prefer a Justice League team of only Five superheros (Superman, Batman, Wonder woman, Flash and Green Lantern.) as Seven superheroes just make it look ridiculous.

Now, out of these Five I think Superman, Batman and Green Lantern are already well known, their origins are well known, the characters need no introduction. Wonder Woman is also fairly recognized character.

So, only team member that needs a solo movie is Flash, after that WB can just make a Justice League movie. (WW can have a prequel movie later, if JL proves to be successful.)

5 members yes but drop Supes.

The focus has to be on the "new" DC characters. Batman will be able to get the extra time in a JL film needed to help make it huge if the time is taken from what would have been time spent on Superman.

The GA is not going to notice.

[roach]

Exactly. People saying start with JLA then, you're forgetting what happens once JLA 2 rolls about or just have only ONE JLA film - business wise that's not a good move. Plus, you'd be skipping the origins - it would be better for just two film universes because of that in my fan opinion. Gotta see things from a business and fan perspective. People may hate the business perspective, but personally find it similarly as fascinating.

that would make no sense to have two universes
Starting with a JLA movie doesn't screw anything up.
You start with a JLA movie...big budget...no solo explanations(like X-men). Let the hype build for characters. Do solo movies and use them to build to JLA2.

Just because Marvel did it one way doesn't mean its the only way to do something

[roach]

5 members yes but drop Supes.

The focus has to be on the "new" DC characters. Batman will be able to get the extra time in a JL film needed to help make it huge if the time is taken from what would have been time spent on Superman.

The GA is not going to notice.

whats the purpose of doing this if you exclude Superman???

[Cain]

that would make no sense to have two universes
Starting with a JLA movie doesn't screw anything up.
You start with a JLA movie...big budget...no solo explanations(like X-men). Let the hype build for characters. Do solo movies and use them to build to JLA2.

Just because Marvel did it one way doesn't mean its the only way to do something


But you can't do that if one production company doesn't have the rights to both use these heroes in JL movies AND in solo movies. Which is the case. DC still has optioned the rights to many different people in hollywood over the years even though they're not DC Entertainment and still get involved. You have to remember that even JLA features Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and etc. it doesn't mean Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and etc. aren't their own independent brands.

Meaning if somebody has the rights to make a JL movie it doesn't mean they also have the rights to produce Batman & Superman movies. In the case of a JL film since the film rights holders behind JL Mortal aren't the same ones with the film rights to Batman or Superman it's safe to assume somebody else still does have the rights to the JLA movie while Legendary have Superman & Batman.

It's not all under one umbrella like ultimatehero has explained in here many times. The film rights to DC entertainment's catalog are tied in with different production companies. Not all under the same roof. Their best option is just to make stand alone movies for every brand including JL with that type of structure.

[CConn]

Because your trying to leverage a status quo setup. If the movies are not dependent on dramatic progression for the main character, because said main character is a fixed center point, with plot happening to him? Then he actually has to be a fixed center point; there has to be an actual status quo to abide to.

The main character either has to have consistent character development, or he has to have a consistent fixed characterization. If not either, than your really not even dealing with a single character anymore.You're really just babbling nonsensically at this point.

You can establish a character's status quo at the beginning of any standalone film, and progress the character throughout the film.

Honestly, the way you're describing things, it's like you really don't know much at all about creative writing in general. What I'm describing is done all the time in both film and literary works. It's not uncommon, and it's not even that hard to do.

[Tobias]

whats the purpose of doing this if you exclude Superman???

Superman has not been included in some great JL stories. The Nail, if I am not wrong, is one of them.

Batman is always there however. And logistically/financially it makes sense to use just one - given that Batman is WB's flagship and most successful franchise it's a no-brainer.

And, if WB is doing JL anytime soon, all the issues around the Supes brand mean they probably can't use the character anyway.

A JL film featuring Batman as the lead with Flash and WW and GL and MM would be huge. Superman is not needed to make the JL franchise one of WB's more lucrative.

[roach]

But you can't do that if one production company doesn't have the rights to both use these heroes in JL movies AND in solo movies. Which is the case. DC still has optioned the rights to many different people in hollywood over the years even though they're not DC Entertainment and still get involved. You have to remember that even JLA features Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and etc. it doesn't mean Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and etc. aren't their own independent brands.

Meaning if somebody has the rights to make a JL movie it doesn't mean they also have the rights to produce Batman & Superman movies. In the case of a JL film since the film rights holders behind JL Mortal aren't the same ones with the film rights to Batman or Superman it's safe to assume somebody else still does have the rights to the JLA movie while Legendary have Superman & Batman.

It's not all under one umbrella like ultimatehero has explained in here many times. The film rights to DC entertainment's catalog are tied in with different production companies. Not all under the same roof. Their best option is just to make stand alone movies for every brand including JL with that type of structure.

However production companies that fall under the umbrella of WB are easier to manage.

[roach]

Superman has not been included in some great JL stories. The Nail, if I am not wrong, is one of them.

Batman is always there however. And logistically/financially it makes sense to use just one - given that Batman is WB's flagship and most successful franchise it's a no-brainer.

And, if WB is doing JL anytime soon, all the issues around the Supes brand mean they probably can't use the character anyway.

A JL film featuring Batman as the lead with Flash and WW and GL and MM would be huge. Superman is not needed to make the JL franchise one of WB's more lucrative.

and there have been some great stories with Superman so that point has been nullified.

The issues surrounding Superman's character are about the origin which won't be in this movie anyway(and even if the family won the rights they aren't gonna keep them away from WB, they'll license them to them and we'll still have Superman movies...the family want the rights to make money off them).
It would not make sense to keep Superman out of JLA...because he'll either need the help from a big budget movie or help it

[Ultimatehero]

Cain, you've somewhat got it. Jeez this is hard to explain lol.

1. You'll have the same problem starting with Justice League as you would have leading into Justice League 2 and beyond. Lack of communication. Which is why I'm guessing people brought up the idea. You still wind back up where you started - lack of communication would not allow them to keep things flowing at a progressive pace. Characters would take two steps forward and one step back in their arcs.
2. Characters are like people, we are always changing and shifting all the time. As those who have seen Avengers have seen - it seems to branch into where the solo films will go from there. Which should be obvious to anyone actually in the film industry. Characters always constantly changing, unless the focus isn't really on them (Batman) or the focus is purely on a mission (Bond).

Now explaining the whole company set-up since people still don't understand lol.

Okay, imagine this:

http://www.zoenature.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/cerberus-2.jpg

The far left side is the production company that has said film. The middle is the managers at WB. The far right side is solely DC. The middle head is the one with the most power. It can give the production company a notion of what it wants. It also controls who gets the DC property.

Now in order to make one of these films you need a script, director, cast, and crew that all three heads agree with. If even a single head does not like where it is heading - it's back to the drawing board because that plan of attack does not work. All three heads need to agree basically.

Now let's bring in MULTIPLE DC properties. The way it is now - none of these companies have any knowledge about what is going on at the other production company. These are the key companies behind developing the film. Warner Bros. is basically just the financial backer and oversees all projects but only to make sure that they are staying within the lines. Basically what this creates is the person working on Wonder Woman knows nothing about Green Lantern, the person working on The Flash knows nothing about Batman, and so on. This can even be found within some companies themselves, hard to believe, but hey - it gets their work done and it's always top quality imo.

MARVEL doesn't have this problem, it's a much more smaller and contained beast. It is one company. Not several. And therein lays the problem.

Also therein lies peoples' confusions. Most think WB is THE film company, it's more of financial backer (as are most studios, I imagine). When the rights are distributed and through these multiple branches - communication is lost. MARVEL and DISNEY don't branch out. Thus communication doesn't break-down.

[Cain]

However production companies that fall under the umbrella of WB are easier to manage.

In the case of DCE's film rights holders most of them do; it doesn't mean they're going to be in communication they're their own independent operators. They're all still separate companies even though they share picture deals with a greater parent company.

Remember these companies also set up more than just superhero movies for produdtion. With all the time they need to spend doing that how could they all possibly co-ordinate to come into one meeting and agree on what to do with tying all their DC properties together as a whole? It's unfeasible considering how much more these people have in their slate outside of the DC properties they hold the film rights to.

It's only easier for say someone like Legendary cause it's one company and they have both Superman and Batman. They could get a World's Finest going probably but they want to keep Batman and Superman separate from each other anyway from what Thomas Tull and them have said in the past.

[Ultimatehero]

Alright, Cain does have it. Yes! I can explain things perfectly. And dude, Roach, as a guy who knows people over there - trust me on this - I know how things operate. These guys are so busy they don't even know all the details on another film at their company, all their focus is on their own individual task. Let's say there's three movies. You have the VP overseeing the two others while managing his own, then you have the two other execs managing their own smaller movies and that's all they focus on and really know. That's how it works. Betting that's how most studios work too. Main thing is - MARVEL is LEGACY pretty much, so as said - give it all to one company, no problemo.

[Tobias]

I don't disagree with a single thing you said, and what you said doesn't really go against what I stated either. Singer behind the helm of Superman was supposed to be incredible. It was just okay.

As they say, past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

Singer was/is too rigid in his sense of things IMO. It seemed to be his way or the highway. I got the sense he surrounded himself with yes -people. In part as he made such glaring erros with SR it's hard to believe someone on the team didn't come up andd say this project is going askew. But apparently they didn't. As much troubling as odd.

[roach]

so what you are saying is the only reason a JLA movie can't be done is because no one will communicate about whats going on with the characters????

I think I am gonna check out of the discussion here.

and Ultimatehero...we are all real people behind these screen names...some of us are closer to things than we appear

[Ultimatehero]

so what you are saying is the only reason a JLA movie can't be done is because no one will communicate about whats going on with the characters????

I think I am gonna check out of the discussion here.

and Ultimatehero...we are all real people behind these screen names...some of us are closer to things than we appear

It's that the studios themselves don't communicate. As said you can find that within the companies as well in how division of labor is handled. This works for multiple other film studios because they don't have to do a combined universe. This would be shaking things up because it has more arms than MARVEL has.

Check out dude, just telling you the facts and yeah - dude - if you look at my posts you'd see how close to it I am. And I can't really given any detailed information because of this. :cwink:

[Cain]

so what you are saying is the only reason a JLA movie can't be done is because no one will communicate about whats going on with the characters????

I think I am gonna check out of the discussion here.

and Ultimatehero...we are all real people behind these screen names...some of us are closer to things than we appear


No man just a shared universe one. Because if whoever makes JLA wants to make spin off's starring Wonder Woman and The Flash for example they still have to consult with whoever has the rights to WW and Flash solo films. Then together they must all talk with the brass at WB and the people at DC as well etc.

I'm guessing in the case of JLM if it came out and did gangbusters Robinov would've mandated that type of co-ordination amongst all those people to make that happen since he always said those spin off's were possibilities.

[Tobias]

Alright, Cain does have it. Yes! I can explain things perfectly. And dude, Roach, as a guy who knows people over there - trust me on this - I know how things operate. These guys are so busy they don't even know all the details on another film at their company, all their focus is on their own individual task. Let's say there's three movies. You have the VP overseeing the two others while managing his own, then you have the two other execs managing their own smaller movies and that's all they focus on and really know. That's how it works. Betting that's how most studios work too. Main thing is - MARVEL is LEGACY pretty much, so as said - give it all to one company, no problemo.

No doubt logistically JL is harder to make than TA was for Marvel.

On top of which I suspect WB and the parites won't move on JL until after the Batman relaunch. Say 2016, though I am hoping 2015.

Given that I'd bet the earliest we will see a JL film is 2019 or 2020.

Even as TA does huge numbers. Maybe beating TDKR. I actually think TA's uber-success will scare WB away from JL for a while.

[Ultimatehero]

No man just a shared universe one. Because if whoever makes JLA wants to make spin off's starring Wonder Woman and The Flash for example they still have to consult with whoever has the rights to WW and Flash solo films. Then together they must all talk with the brass at WB and the people at DC as well etc.

I'm guessing in the case of JLM if it came out and did gangbusters Robinov would've mandated that type of co-ordination amongst all those people to make that happen since he always said those spin off's were possibilities.

To the bottom, yeah, I'd imagine it would give him the encouragement to either hand them all to one studio or create a separate studio to solely handle it. I actually don't see why that's not what they're doing. They start company deals all the time. Give DC an actual film branch, hire the top people for it and have it act as it's own film company basically. That right there would simplify things, unsure if that's possible though. I have limited knowledge.

First paragraph has it nailed on right. I mean, when asking a friend who was working on Wonder Woman if he knew anything about Green Lantern:

"We really don't have any information, we haven't even seen the script for it. We have as much information as you do. It is very top secret."

That's how I know what the communication regarding these properties is like at present status. Plus some execs (or Vice Presidents even) don't hear word on a property until after it's in the trades within their own company. Think that in large part has to do with the CEO. And these guys are high-up. There's just something screwy about film studios that it works out like that. But, knowing these guys and how responsible they are and awesome they are at their jobs? It's probably that they just have A LOT on their plate that they don't have time to find out about more beyond their film to shepherd along.

For some reason, despite being in WB and working on a DC property, a DC property is top secret even to the top people within company walls. Things like that with these properties? Needs to be broken down if you want a joint effort. I mean, I doubt the top people behind Thor went:

"Yeah, we really know nothing about Captain America and Avengers. It's off-limits."

Keep in mind that all were being worked on at the same time.

I don't know why it's like that. But, that is one MAJOR thing MARVEL has going in it's favor that DC absolutely needs to make a combined universe work.

[Tobias]

To the bottom, yeah, I'd imagine it would give him the encouragement to either hand them all to one studio or create a separate studio to solely handle it. I actually don't see why that's not what they're doing. They start company deals all the time. Give DC an actual film branch, hire the top people for it and have it act as it's own film company basically. That right there would simplify things, unsure if that's possible though. I have limited knowledge.

This is the million dollar question. Seemingly a no-brainer. Why doesn't WB create a DC Studios subsidiary a la Marvel Studios?

Clearly though, even if WB wanted to do this which any right minded studio would, the fact that the rights are scattered across different groups makes it tough.

In some cases rights can be indefinite - as with SONY and Spiderman. As long as SONY makes a Spiderman film every so many year they retain the rights.

That may be the case with some of the DC characters and these other groups.

In any case, to gather up the rights for say WW, Flash, Aquaman into a DC Sudios (would Legendary relinquish Supes and Bats) could take years and years.

WB is at a disadvantage here. Even if they wanted to do the obvious and create a DC Studios it probably would take a decade or more.

[Ultimatehero]

No, it really doesn't. WB has the end all say all. They took Wonder Woman back for example and just handed it to another production company. They're God, lol. I laugh, but that's the truth - they can do whatever they want. The production companies have the properties, but that's mainly because that's just how WB distributed them. Production companies have their own smaller labels which WB I doubt has any real say in - it's just a distributor. I think it might be some sort of trade-off, unsure how that works exactly. Then you have the blockbusters where they are the top brass. So creating a individual DC would be relatively easy, just don't know how the start up would be. Because all the CEOS of the production companies self-manage I guess is the word to use? Business people may understand what I'm trying to say better. It may be in a sense deleting that aspect, which I think it is - just a division under DC whereas it's more just signing deals with producers to head up their own companies that they overlook "from above."

You've got that at Fox and Sony, but those are studios. These smaller entities are production companies whereas WB is the studio. They don't have the same regulations. It works differently. Basically just 'STUDIO' v. 'PRODUCTION COMPANY.' I was going to say something about a hypothetic situation, but couldn't think of one because it didn't make sense lol. SONY for example has given the Spidey rights to another company within their walls, that company would only lose the rights if SONY lost the rights or they got into a Spidey disagreement and SONY took the rights away. Studio boss is boss, more or less. DC, I think, signed like some kind of exclusive deal with WB or else they'd have lost Batman after B&R -> Begins time or Superman time. Studios outside of Disney (or unsure how it works now) signed an agreement with those particular details for MARVEL. So it's two different levels of power and two types of contracts coming into account.

They could even kick Nolan out, but believe me - they love that guy. Has his own office. Even has his own miniature bat-cart he drives around the lot. Him and Clint Eastwoods are the BIG dogs around there.

[Tobias]

Bottom line as re: WB.

WB will vouchafe their Batman franchise. That is front and center. Re-launching it after the Bale interrignum.

The other A list franchises can fall into place after Batman is up again.

Before that Lobo and other second tier DC franchiss which can be made for 100 - 125 million should/may be the focus. For a few years - 2014, maybe 2015 but until the Bat is back.

At that point WB can lauch Flash, WW or maybe JL.

For now Batman is all WB has going for it - and I think they know it and that is why they are so reticent to launch a Flash or WW film.

[jmc]

Bond is a rare exception, Batman many would argue focus was on the villains. JMC your post shows no sense of logic - it takes a long time to make a quality product. Fans are the slow ones thinking film making is an instant art, THAT is how junk is made. Churned out with no thought. I mean, are you for real??? And Nolan? His films ARE consistent. Another thing beyond awkward and nonsenical in your post. There's a reason why there's years between franchise films DESPITE having the game plan YEARS before the first film. It's not "instant gratification" - THAT is how junk is made. So quit "we want it now" and understand thought is going into MAKING IT GOOD. THAT is what's taking time - something good they all agree with, one thing that complicates it - no other reason. And if JLA, need DIFFERENT cast to maintain a sense of unity or as said give it all to one company (No, WB is MULTIPLE companies) so it can be done easily but that is NOT the hold up just an explanation of why DC as is right now can't really have the connectedness that Marvel has.

Basically two points you need to learn JMC:

1) Quality films take time to make, bad blockbusters are spit out at a fast pace.

2) WB with these is a hydra three headed beast. Something needs to win over all three heads to get made (concerning DC products). As said that's the main complication.

You just seem to want a jumbled DC universe than a thought out one with JLA, which as said - is much easier to get quality with different cast or have all DC at one company than ''screw it, throw random parts into a blender, hope something good comes of it.'' There is a much more profitable and quality efficent way to do it that is also faster.

I don't want a freakin DC universe at all, in fact my preference is solo films and that's it, but if one must be made I'd prefer it to be a loosely based one and not one that ends up like Marvel with their batch of vanilla flavoured movies. And if my post is lacking logic it's because I'm frustrated in the amount of crap big budget movies we get every year.

[Ultimatehero]

Which has NOTHING to do with the amount of time it is taking. You seem to equate taking time to make a film as a bad thing when in fact it's the opposite which IS true. Only here the additional beast of the three headed dog rather than two.

[jmc]

Which has NOTHING to do with the amount of time it is taking. You seem to equate taking time to make a film as a bad thing when in fact it's the opposite which IS true. Only here the additional beast of the three headed dog rather than two.

Where did I say anything of the sort?

[Ultimatehero]

Just sounded like original complain was the wait time, "just make them!" Or could have misread.
Most common 'fan complaint.'

[The Guard]

"Just make them" is a pretty obvious statement to me.

Make the movies.

As a studio/creators, stop obsessing about how hard it will be to get a few connections taken care of, and prevent continuity issues, find a solution, and make the movies about the heroes and their world. Not that I think that's what WB is doing. We haven't seen solo hero/JL films fo financial reasons thus far, not because they feel the films are impossible to make.

By that I meant the amount of work it took into bringing them all together. The most striking would have been Iron Man and Thor. They solved this with magic equates technology for instance. Tone is a major one they kept in line while allowing solo films to seem drastically different. That took work.

Here's the thing. Even with that little tidbit, which is all well and good, Iron Man and Thor still have massive differences in their characters, their origins and their worlds. One is still a guy in a technologically advanced suit of armor. One is still a godlike being with great powers from an alien/Norse realm, who fights magic and monsters.

And that's the point. Bringing those different characters together for a common goal. And having a character say that "magic" equals "science" doesn't change that. It's a nice thought, but it's not anything concrete tonally. It doesn't do anything to draw their worlds together. Creating similar movies tonally, with solid characterization and a balance of humor and action, is what has accomplished this for Marvel Studios. I don't think people care about connecting this stuff as much as certain writers think. It's not like THOR strove for any real versmilitude beyond that. Fans (and general audiences, it seems) just want to see them connected. Brought together.

Constant signals no change. Also keep in mind neither Bond nor Batman really have ever had a key supporting cast (outside of just 'functions' or 'foils').

Constant means that certain elements remain constant.

M, Moneypenny, Q, Felix Leiter, Zukovsky in Brosnan's Bond movies, and Mathis in Craig's aren't key supporting cast?

Guard you're mishearing what J wanted - same actors for different interpretations of said character. Meaning an actor playing the character in Earth One and Earth Two for instance (unsure if I got that right, don't have that much knowledge lol - but I think that comparison works). Audiences would easily know it's the character with two different actors playing them. What they would have difficulty with is understanding an actor playing two DIFFERENT INCARNATIONS of said character, they'd think it's the same version.

I see. My mistake. This has always been my point: How different are these incarnations of the characters supposedly going to be that they're not recognizeable as the character? And what are those differences? And why does it even matter, hypothetically speaking, in the context of telling stories about those characters?

For instance, the Batman in JUSTICE LEAGUE: MORTAL was very much in line with the Batman of the Nolan films...a serious, relatively grounded take, with more romantic relationships in his past, and slightly more advanced gadgets (and a plane), but there was nothing to him I can't see Nolan's Batman having a little later in his career. But there with this idea that because Armie Hammer was to play him, and Bale was currently playing Batman in Nolan films, that general audiences would have been confused. About what? It's Batman. It's Batman at a different time in his life, in a different story about Batman and his friends, played by a different actor, like Bond, or numerous other characters throughout cinematic history. I know audiences aren't really intelligent, but I also think people sell the general public short.

I was the one saying different actors for different variations on said character. J was saying same actors for different variations - unless you think audiences can really get elseworlds in the film world? Even there we have different looking characters due to artist shake-ups. Basically have Keaton in all variations of Batman - now tell audiences that despite them all being played by Keaton, the films don't have anything in common. I can't even get my head wrapped around that one. It would seem like a mess.

I knew I saw the words "Elseworlds" in there. Wasn't my idea. I think it'd be way too much. I don't mind the idea of different "dimensions" being explored, but outrigth doing Elseworlds would be a bit much.

What you said actually reminds me of a point. Keaton, Kilmer, and Clooney were all part of the same Batman franchise. I don't recall the general public, even with the change in tone in BATMAN RETURNS and the wildly different tones of FOREVER and BATMAN & ROBIN, being confused about the fact that it was just Batman's continuing story.

Read the above. And tell me you're not baffled by the Keaton idea.

I'm not, actually. It's the same actor playing different versions of the character. While it's not the approach I would take, I'm not confused by the concept of an actor playing a character any moreso than I am baffled my Kevin Conroy playing different animated versions of Batman that may or may not be connected. Nor am I obsessed with what connections a particular version of Batman must have with another one, especially if the writers/artists have made it apparent that this is not the point of their project, and aren't making clear connections.

Making a Justice League movie is easy. Combining universes isn't. And using the same actor for TWO VARIATIONS that have NOTHING in common? Yeah, audiences (think Keaton example) probably would feel dizzy. This is why it's best to use different actors for different incarnations of said character - in other words two actors playing Batman, rather than one and telling them all his Batman films have nothing in common. That's why I kept bringing their previous attempt up because in-company model, that's the most efficient way currently to do it and why they were going to do it that way.

I agree that its probably best to use different actors for different incarnations of a character. I've never argued otherwise. Though Ryan Reynold's DEADPOOL may have something to say in the matter.

EXACTLY. The best means to go and the easiest is one film universe is about the JLA the other film universe is these characters solo. As it stands - combining them would just make a mess of things. But, you can easily have two film universes going on at the same time and the audience won't get confused (just two universes, same actor - yeah, even I'm confused on how that would work (Keaton example)).

Again, this obsession with comparmentalizing things into universes makes no sense, especially with no context. There doesn't need to be a separate "universe" as long as the events in solo films don't completely contradict the events in the JL film.

Chris Nolan can say all he wants about how Batman is the only hero in his universe. They can repeat that ad nauseum, but I wouldn't bat an eye if Bale decided to join a Justice League project, and it was revealed that there were other heroes out there in the universe his Batman had been part of. It would simply mean that creatively, Chris Nolan had changed his mind. Nothing in the movies would neccessarily contradict anything in the other, as long as they weren't written to do so. And if the solo movies focused on solo characters, and the JL movie focused on JL issues, this would not likely become an issue.

IF WB sets it all up at company then and only then could a combined universe JLA film be really possible. Because then you can keep all the decks in check. Not tying them along. But making sure the character progression remains at a constant - here you're also dealing with supporting characters that progress and not just the hero (as said another key difference from Bond and Burton's Batman).

Because comic book movies have been chock full of supporting characters that actually evolve in any meaningful way, and because the JL's supporting cast is really going to develop in a JL film...I don't see this being a large issue, either.

Starting with JLA - you'd still be entering the same problem with JLA2 just later on, thus the need of either option 1 or option 2. It's a great idea in theory UNTIL JLA 2.

Exactly. People saying start with JLA then, you're forgetting what happens once JLA 2 rolls about or just have only ONE JLA film - business wise that's not a good move. Plus, you'd be skipping the origins - it would be better for just two film universes because of that in my fan opinion. Gotta see things from a business and fan perspective. People may hate the business perspective, but personally find it similarly as fascinating.

Why is it not a good move businesswise once JLA 2 rolls around?

If the Justice League movies are about the Justice League, and the solo films are about the solo heroes...why would suddenly making a solo hero film near the time a second Justice League film came out cause a problem? It would be a similar dynamic to what Marvel is doing. They don't actually have to be connected, but why would their mere existence near each other cause a problem?

But you can't do that if one production company doesn't have the rights to both use these heroes in JL movies AND in solo movies. Which is the case. DC still has optioned the rights to many different people in hollywood over the years even though they're not DC Entertainment and still get involved. You have to remember that even JLA features Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and etc. it doesn't mean Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and etc. aren't their own independent brands. Meaning if somebody has the rights to make a JL movie it doesn't mean they also have the rights to produce Batman & Superman movies. In the case of a JL film since the film rights holders behind JL Mortal aren't the same ones with the film rights to Batman or Superman it's safe to assume somebody else still does have the rights to the JLA movie while Legendary have Superman & Batman.

Safe to assume...or you actually know this?

Superman has not been included in some great JL stories. The Nail, if I am not wrong, is one of them.

Superman is in The Nail. He's just not Superman for most of it. The whole point of The Nail is that Superman wasn't Superman until the league and he intervene in each other's fates...because of the nail.

Batman is always there however. And logistically/financially it makes sense to use just one - given that Batman is WB's flagship and most successful franchise it's a no-brainer.

Logistically and financially it makes sense to use both. Especially if MAN OF STEEL succeeds. Especially if you're not assuming people will respond favorably to the other characters without solo films to introduce them.

And, if WB is doing JL anytime soon, all the issues around the Supes brand mean they probably can't use the character anyway.

That's just not remotely true at this point. It's a concern, but it's very unlikely at this point.

A JL film featuring Batman as the lead with Flash and WW and GL and MM would be huge. Superman is not needed to make the JL franchise one of WB's more lucrative.

But using him would help. We're talking about a film JLA story. You lead with your best. You don't just decide not to include Superman just because it could work. You include him because he should be in a JL film. Unless you're making JL Detroit or something.

1. You'll have the same problem starting with Justice League as you would have leading into Justice League 2 and beyond. Lack of communication. Which is why I'm guessing people brought up the idea. You still wind back up where you started - lack of communication would not allow them to keep things flowing at a progressive pace. Characters would take two steps forward and one step back in their arcs.

If communication is really impossible, then there's a comparably simple fix for this. You put a plan into place that eliminates that issue. You make solo movies about solo heroes, and Justice League movies about, gasp, the Justice League and its own issues.

2. Characters are like people, we are always changing and shifting all the time. As those who have seen Avengers have seen - it seems to branch into where the solo films will go from there. Which should be obvious to anyone actually in the film industry. Characters always constantly changing, unless the focus isn't really on them (Batman) or the focus is purely on a mission (Bond)

Characters are supposed to change from film to film, but characters have rarely changed so much that they are somehow unrecognizeable as they evolve.
If characters developing is going to be a problem, then make their arc in JLA related to their role in the JLA, and the conflicts that arise because of the JLA, and have the solo films take a similiar approach. Problem solved.

Now explaining the whole company set-up since people still don't understand lol.

You should really just sticky this, or make it part of your signature. I don't know if you're doing this because of some need to constantly reaffirm and point out that you're in the business, or because you really think people don't get such a simple concept.

But you've explained this like 10, 15 times in various threads. You've implied that no one understands every time.

I've seen nothing suggesting that people "don't get" this. They just don't care.

Few here believe a JL film is impossible.

Few here believe that if WB really wants to make a lot of money with a JLA film, that execs won't pick up the phone and schedule a few business meetings, and make it work somehow, so that they can get rich/er.

Remember these companies also set up more than just superhero movies for produdtion. With all the time they need to spend doing that how could they all possibly co-ordinate to come into one meeting and agree on what to do with tying all their DC properties together as a whole? It's unfeasible considering how much more these people have in their slate outside of the DC properties they hold the film rights to.

Yes, how could they possibly find free time to come to a single meeting, or a series of meetings, to figure out to make a ****ton of money? Which is their job.

Really?

so what you are saying is the only reason a JLA movie can't be done is because no one will communicate about whats going on with the characters????

I think I am gonna check out of the discussion here.

and Ultimatehero...we are all real people behind these screen names...some of us are closer to things than we appear

I'm not going to check out...but I will call big fat BS.

If WB wanted to make a shared franchise happen...then they would have to communicate. As businesses are supposed to do when they have a shared project. As historically, businesses have done. The fact that they don't very often, or haven't, doesn't mean they couldn't in the future, or that they won't.

Because if whoever makes JLA wants to make spin off's starring Wonder Woman and The Flash for example they still have to consult with whoever has the rights to WW and Flash solo films. Then together they must all talk with the brass at WB and the people at DC as well etc.

Then that's what they would have to do. I was under the impression that this is how business worked, and that these are the elements involved in such an occurrence.

I'm supposed to believe that if they want to make hundreds of millions of dollars...that they won't communicate with each other?

I don't.

Even as TA does huge numbers. Maybe beating TDKR. I actually think TA's uber-success will scare WB away from JL for a while.

You think that a superhero team up movie making a ton of money will make WB NOT want to make one?

Based on what?

This is the million dollar question. Seemingly a no-brainer. Why doesn't WB create a DC Studios subsidiary a la Marvel Studios?

Because they obviously, as a business, don't feel they need one at this juncture. Which means they probably, in their top secret discussions, know something we don't.

[metaphysician]

I'm sorry, I stopped reading when I saw the words "find a solution."

"Find a solution" is not a step. "Find a solution" is barely even a goal. "Find a solution" is the catchphrase of people who want to make someone *else* do the work, while loudly declaring how easy it is to do.

Is it really that hard to admit that some things are not easy to do at all?

[The Guard]

You couldn't be bothered to read or respond anything to else, but you bothered to make that post?

"Find a solution" means "find a solution". If there's a problem, you find a solution to it.

I wasn't asked to lay out a step by step plan for a franchise, and to bankroll it with hundreds of millions of dollars. I responded to the suggestion and statements that things such as having solo films interact with a Justice League film pose a difficult challenge. There are challenges, yes. There are solutions to such problems. Not every challenge poses an impossible task. Businesses, especially creative businesses, make plans and they find solutions to problems. That is what they do in order to make money. That is what will have to be done if there is to be a Justice League franchise, a shared universe, or other solo hero films from WB.

I and several others have explained potential solutions to the problems people have pointed out for the concept of a shared universe. I never said they were easy to do. Obviously they aren't, because the people pointing out problems in the first place haven't been able to reason out responses to them, hence they still think they are nigh insurmountable problems.

I have never said it was was easy to do. But Is it really that hard to admit that some problems are not as hard to solve as some people think they are just because they didn't think of a solution, to recognize that comic book writers have been able to traverse and find solutions for these kinds of creative issues for decades, and that maybe people are making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to the potential shared universe concept simply because it has taken WB a long time to begin production on one?

[Ultimatehero]

Guard, dude, no offense but do you know what 'foils' means? You just listed foils. Those characters basically just serve as plot functions. Alfred, for example, would be a 'function' in the Burton Batman movies as well. Now look at the supporting cast of most films and you'll see that a lot more attention is brought to them. Not saying 'foils' or characters that just serve as 'plot functions' are wrong or bad in any way - it just depends on the movie and what is needed. This upcoming Bond film is really the first time we'll get a fully well-rounded M. Craig's may be building upon it, but it's way too early to tell and would be the first to serve more than just progressing the plot.

With Conroy you have one key thing. ANIMATION. Same with comics. It's basically the same as different actors. Technically it's not. But on the design level there is a difference. You've got, I have no idea, five Batman comics running at the same time all of which are different and all of which have a different artistic design of the character. Same with animation. An actor doesn't have that range in physicality.

Events vs. Character. AGAIN. Events vs. Character. This is something that fans don't think about, but it is the most crucial in film-making. All characters change and undergo some arc unless they're foils. Just like people, that change is natural. To hell with the events, events don't matter. It's the character that matters and needs to progress and seem in line with what came before and comes after - WITH NO OTHER CONNECTIVE TISSUE IN SIGHT.

POINT IS - CHANGE. EVERYTHING CHANGES. Constantly. Only films in which that doesn't happen - Bond where it's just focused on the mission, that age old phrase of the only thing you can be sure about is it doesn't change? Bond primary example. Burton's Batman - main focus was on the villains done away with.

No. Not release date. Same problem. CONTINUITY. People are probably saying partly start with JL to make it easier - solves complications of solo films leading up to it. HOWEVER the same complications would arrive after. Solo films leading up to JL2. It wouldn't be circumnavigating the problem. It would be delaying it.

Caine has it wrong, some things he's saying are right - but I can and should never be a teacher lmaol. Look at all of my posts if you want to know how WB and lack of communication works. That's where he tried to picks things up from. But, I'm not great at describing business terms lmaol. I can do - I just can't ever teach.

Dude, gasp, you've just said what I've been saying the past couple of pages. You'd align with option 2 of setting them a part. Like WB's original plan was. Option 1 is a DC live action film studio - why they're not doing that I have no idea. Maybe it's more complicated than I think to do that.

Once again you're going with option 2. You're not really pulling things out of a hat. You're more just repeating me at this point lol.

Dude, Caine is a primary example of how most on here get confused. Also it's saying why the miscommunication is the key issue to those who want a shared universe. All I'm doing is explaining the logistics.

In order to do that you need a complete overhaul. It's like that with every project. And you'll need them all on the same page from day 1. When these projects are 'top secret' from one another - not sharing information for whatever reason - as it is now. Then yeah, you've got a problem that needs to be fixed. There's few meetings even WITHIN their own companies about THEIR OWN films. That speaks for itself and how busy they are - they don't even know that much about a film at their own company being worked on by somebody next door. <- This means a lot to current communication within companies at the moment.

Hey dude, call it whatever you want. All I'm doing is saying how it's done over there. How crowded it is over there. And how things are for the execs and VP at a couple companies over there. And as said you would need a complete over-haul of how DC properties are handled. Step # 1 make DC property activities known to others involved with DC properties - NOT "This can only be known by our company and the head of WB." That's cutting off any form of collaboration from the start.

Nothing's 'top secret.' Why is it so many like these 'top secret' notions? If there was something going on - there would be something going on. And it'd be really easy, well - for some, to know and sadly there is nothing going on.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE (yeah, numbers are mixed up):

Option 1: JL and Solo films are completely different universes (as per WB's original plan - different actors).
Option 2: Change the way business is done in film studios like WB to allow a more cohesive communicative collaboration. This is MUCH more of a challenge than what MARVEL is doing with Disney due to having so many branches. Allow them to see material on other DC properties (right now, that's not going on).
Option 3: Create a DC entertainment production company that handles, or perhaps oversees, all of which is going on - allowing (not restricting) passage of information from one company to the next within Warner Bros. walls.

Any three options is the way to go. A change needs to be made or leave it divided (as WB's original intentions, which make complete sense). And yes, in order for there to be communication a change in how things are done does need to be made as you can probably see how complicated this can even get within THEIR OWN companies. Status Quo isn't going to fix things. The solutions are fairly obvious and listed above of what can be implemented and what would need to be done in order to implement it.

Collaboration and communication is all great and well. I want it. Don't need to keep stressing it. But in order to do that? You'd need to change the way the properties are currently being handled - only that company with it and the head of WB knowing what's going on with it. Basically you need to delete secrecy within the studio as a whole regarding these projects. Why it's like that... no idea...

[The Guard]

Guard, dude, no offense but do you know what 'foils' means? You just listed foils. Those characters basically just serve as plot functions. Alfred, for example, would be a 'function' in the Burton Batman movies as well. Now look at the supporting cast of most films and you'll see that a lot more attention is brought to them. Not saying 'foils' or characters that just serve as 'plot functions' are wrong or bad in any way - it just depends on the movie and what is needed. This upcoming Bond film is really the first time we'll get a fully well-rounded M. Craig's may be building upon it, but it's way too early to tell and would be the first to serve more than just progressing the plot.

Couple of things...

One, I have only a vague idea what you're referring to me having just listed. I've written a lot today, and unless you quote what I "just" listed, I have no idea what you're talking about. Nor am I going to go back through everything I wrote to see what it was.

I've known what foils are since about first grade. I call them "foils". Not "plot functions". Foils often are part of the supporting cast, but they don't have to be. A foil is a type of character interaction. It does not denote the level of screentime or importance of a character. Two leading characters could easily be foils, and supporting characters can be foils as well.

With Conroy you have one key thing. ANIMATION. Same with comics. It's basically the same as different actors. Technically it's not. But on the design level there is a difference. You've got, I have no idea, five Batman comics running at the same time all of which are different and all of which have a different artistic design of the character. Same with animation. An actor doesn't have that range in physicality.

I didn't say there wasn't a difference. I said its about as confusing to me as the other example I gave. That is, an actor playing different versions of a character does not confuse me. It's an actor playing another version of a character. That, in itself, is not confusing. I also said I wouldn't do it that way myself.

Events vs. Character. AGAIN. Events vs. Character. This is something that fans don't think about, but it is the most crucial in film-making. All characters change and undergo some arc unless they're foils. Just like people, that change is natural. To hell with the events, events don't matter. It's the character that matters and needs to progress - WITH NO OTHER CONNECTIVE TISSUE IN SIGHT.

What don't fans think about now? Character? Events? I assure you, fans who care about the adaption process think about those things all the time.

POINT IS - CHANGE. EVERYTHING CHANGES. Constantly. Only films in which that doesn't happen - Bond where it's just focused on the mission, that age old phrase of the only thing you can be sure about is it doesn't change? Bond primary example. Burton's Batman - main focus was on the villains done away with.

I'm not sure why you're even making this point. What's its context in the discussion about Justice League and shared universes?

Again, characters may change and develop from film to film, but that change rarely renders characters, especially superhero characters, unrecognizeable. Without specific, realistic examples and some context, I don't see this as an issue.

No. Not release date. Same problem. CONTINUITY. People are probably saying partly start with JL to make it easier - solves complications of solo films leading up to it. HOWEVER the same complications would arrive after. Solo films leading up to JL2. It wouldn't be circumnavigating the problem. It would be delaying it.

I'm unclear how we got from Burton's Batman to release dates.

What problems would starting with JL and releasing solo films afterward create?

Dude, gasp, you've just said what I've been saying the past couple of pages. You'd align with option 2 of setting them a part. Like WB's original plan was. Option 1 is a DC live action film studio - why they're not doing that I have no idea. Maybe it's more complicated than I think to do that.

Technically I said what I've been saying for years now, but fair enough. I'd align with eliminating the issue entirely if it's as corporately complex as you've stated. I wouldn't set the various heroes apart, or suggest that they don't exist in the same universe, I just wouldn't go out of my way either to solidify what is and isn't connected, and I would make sure nothing was done in solo films that drastically affected a JL franchise, and vice versa. In other words, I wouldn't create problems for myself and for my franchises by overthinking the concept. That's assuming it's as complex and difficult a process as you've stated it is

Once again you're going with option 2. You're not really pulling things out of a hat. You're more just repeating me at this point lol.

I've been stating what I want for years now, which is largely based on what the comic books have done for the most part. Told stories about these individual heroes and their league of heroes, some that are mentioned in other heroes' titles/franchises, and some that aren't. No one is repeating you. Don't worry, I'm not taking credit for the idea, and you shouldn't either.

Dude, Caine is a primary example of how most on here get confused. Also it's saying why the miscommunication is the key issue to those who want a shared universe. All I'm doing is explaining the logistics.

"Most"?

Nope.

What specifically about Cain's comments make you think they don't understand what you've been trying to explain?

[quote]In order to do that you need a complete overhaul. It's like that with every project. And you'll need them all on the same page from day 1. When these projects are 'top secret' from one another - not sharing information for whatever reason - as it is now. Then yeah, you've got a problem that needs to be fixed. There's few meetings even WITHIN their own companies about THEIR OWN films. That speaks for itself.

That they get what they need to get done in those few meetings?

And as said you would need a complete over-haul of how DC properties are handled. Step # 1 make DC property activities known to others involved with DC properties - NOT "This can only be known by our company and the head of WB." That's cutting off any form of collaboration from the start.

So...they need to communicate if they're to have a shared universe. We've established that.

Nothing's 'top secret.' Why is it so many like these 'top secret' notions? If there was something going on - there would be something going on. And it'd be really easy, well - for some, to know and sadly there is nothing going on.

I was being tongue in cheek.

[Ultimatehero]

That shared universe equates needing events to tie them together. You've even implied as much. When in fact it's just the character's progression. And obviously not because many just note events rather than consistency in character.

the recognition paragraph seriously makes me question everything you type. A character is changing. Flash at the end of Flash isn't the same as the beginning, the Flash at the end of JLA wouldn't be who he was at the beginning. Recognizable, duh! I mean, really? Progression from film to film along a shared universe platform has NOTHING to do with knowing Flash is Flash. It's his progression/arc being maintained

JLA2 note is about if shared universe. It wouldn't delete the complications that arise from leading into a JL1. It would just be delaying it. How is that difficult to understand the same issues would be there, still leading into if shared universe. start however you want, just it wouldn't make things less complicated or different.

Um, dude - basically explaining production companies as studios. WB can take back the rights from anyone they handed them to. Re-read it, you'll see. the more minute details are off.

Not really. As said few meetings. But knowledge on other films within their own company is not what somebody would expect. You'd be surprised, I was, so I know how it sounds.

And to communicate. As said - changes need to be made. Ex: material is confidential to other production companies with DC properties.

[jmc]

Just sounded like original complain was the wait time, 'just make them!' Or could have misread.
Most common 'fan complaint.'

'Just make them' in the sense of just worry about making the movies and making them good and not about whether things connect or not. I've got all the time in the world.

[The Guard]

That shared universe equates needing events to tie them together. You've even implied as much. When in fact it's just the character's progression. And obviously not because many just note events rather than consistency in character.

I have? I think I've implied and stated the opposite.

You don't need events to tie the solo films to the shared films.

the recognition paragraph seriously makes me question everything you type. A character is changing. Flash at the end of Flash isn't the same as the beginning, the Flash at the end of JLA wouldn't be who he was at the beginning. Recognizable, duh! I mean, really?

Why? Are you confused?

Well, in JUSTICE LEAGUE: MORTAL, The Flash at the end was dead, and Wally, so you are correct. No, he wouldn't be the same at the end of a film in the sense that if he was a real person, he would have experienced some changes/events in his life and perhaps his persona, but neither would he be likely to have changed so much that he couldn't show up in a solo film and not be recognizeable as The Flash. Without giving me a specific example, again, this type of issue means nothing to me.

Progression from film to film along a shared universe platform has NOTHING to do with knowing Flash is Flash. It's his progression/arc being maintained

I never said it did.

If he is going to progress as a character, then yes, his arc should be maintained. But again, without speficics, this doesn't really mean anything in context. My point is that even if Flash changes...he's not going to change so much that people will be confused if he shows up in a JL film, especially if they're careful about the changes he goes through.

Your argument seems to be that if Flash changed in a certain way in JUSTICE LEAGUE, that come FLASH 2, this would present an issue?

Ok. I get that. But how could he change? What issue would it present?

That's what I'm asking you to clarify.

JLA2 note is about if shared universe. It wouldn't delete the complications that arise from leading into a JL1. It would just be delaying it. How is that difficult to understand the same issues would be there, still leading into if shared universe. start however you want, just it wouldn't make things less complicated or different.

You keep making vague statements about issues and complications...without actually pointing out what they are, besides "CHARACTER, DUDE! STORY!"

What issues? What complications? Work with me here. I know what they are likely to be, but what specific issues and complications do you feel would pose an actual problem if we were to see a JL film, then THE FLASH, and then JL2 with The Flash in it?

Um, dude - basically explaining production companies as studios. WB can take back the rights from anyone they handed them to. Re-read it, you'll see. the more minute details are off.

Again...if you don't quote me, I often have no idea what you're referring to, or what the context of your statements are. Do you know how to quote people?

[Mondragon]

Looks like WB, Geoff Johns and DC have finally got their act together, and committed to putting together a Justice League project worthy of the name, and to stand against the Avengers media explosion.
They should be proud! -http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/170385-full-cast-announced-for-robot-chickens-dc-comics-special

How DC sees itself - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AOI79rLovI&feature=player_embedded

[Ultimatehero]

I'm not talking about any specific example, alright lamen terms... IF shared universe...

Flash 1
JLA
Flash 2

You wouldn't have the character at the same point in his life, character arc, through all three films. Obviously.

There is where you run into difficulty and you'd still have said difficulty and complications with...

JLA
Flash 1
JLA 2

Obviously. Can't be any clearer than that.

In order to need to be careful about changes.... ding ding ding.... COMMUNICATION!

You would run into the same complications starting with JLA as you would leading into it IF shared universe. Stand-alone JLA with no ties to the solo films is a completely different thing and has NO complications about it (unless it uses the same cast which you can just see them saying now: "yes, Bale plays Batman in both - but JLA Batman has absolutely nothing outside of character name to do with solo Batman, it's two different universes with nothing in common outside of character name, actor and his physical appearance!").

It seems you get that part, just not the wording and what it would take to ensure that IF shared universe. It would be the options after the above # 1.

It's not what happens to the character. I have no idea how you think I'm saying that. All I know about JLA is stand-alone series with different actors, that's all. Know that past, now, and future so you won't get confused again. I'm saying for those careful considerations in keeping whatever arc it is consistent IF shared universe you need communication and that it doesn't matter where JLA is placed in the line - the same complications and needing to pay careful consideration comes into account.

Not really into quoting, but that was an explanation of what cain got wrong/confused about.

NOW ABOUT COMMUNICATION:

1) Executives and VPs often know little else beyond their ONE film that they are working on individually, and very very little about the film their co-worker is working on.
2) Production companies don't communicate, they're all practically strangers to each other. Their films are kept confidential even from the higher-ups in other various related production companies.
3) Right now the difficulty of getting a DC film made is having three heads, adding more will likely make it even more difficult, but okay - let's say do that anyways. There are other things that need to get fixed such as finding a means to get everyone on the same page. And making knowledge about these properties accessible to those working within WB at higher levels of creative command (executives, Vice President). So there are changes that need to be implemented to have the communication open which it is currently not.
4) #1 is probably due to some reason that I'm unaware of, the most obvious one is that their schedules are hectic which doesn't give them the amount of time needed to have detailed meetings like other companies outside of the film industry. Most meetings they do have is about WHAT OTHER SCRIPTS/PROPERTIES TO PURCHASE - detailed story development is left solely to the person charge of whatever film they are behind. Plus not too mention the VPs would be spear-heading another blockbuster project while keeping the creative development side afloat alongside trying to get their DC heads together - overall this would likely cause further delay. Possible? Yes. Anything is. Beyond complicated and maybe bringing other conflicts into play? Without a doubt. As said changes need to come into play if one wants a shared universe. A stand alone JLA film with no ties to the solo films = remarkably easy and simple in comparison, which is why that's the route WB initially took rather than casting Bale & Routh in their possible JLA film years ago.

[Ultimatehero]

Looks like WB, Geoff Johns and DC have finally got their act together, and committed to putting together a Justice League project worthy of the name, and to stand against the Avengers media explosion.
They should be proud! -http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/170385-full-cast-announced-for-robot-chickens-dc-comics-special

Dude! You punk'd or rick rolled us!

[ЯɘvlveR]

he punk roll'd us.

[spider-neil]

people are talking about building up the characters for JL. why?
superman, batman and wonderwoman are some of the most iconic characters on the planet and the general audience has 'maybe' some passing knowledge of aquaman, flash and green lantern.

they shouldn't bother with the solo movies that tease with an after credits clip, they should just make a justice league movie and fill in the blanks IN THE MOVIE.

DC is currently getting taken to the cleaners with the only character making them money being batman. they need another hit that doesn't have 'dark' or 'knight' or 'batman' in the title and I'm not convinced that will be man of steel

[Gamma Burst]

people are talking about building up the characters for JL. why?
superman, batman and wonderwoman are some of the most iconic characters on the planet and the general audience has 'maybe' some passing knowledge of aquaman, flash and green lantern.

they shouldn't bother with the solo movies that tease with an after credits clip, they should just make a justice league movie and fill in the blanks IN THE MOVIE.

DC is currently getting taken to the cleaners with the only character making them money being batman. they need another hit that doesn't have 'dark' or 'knight' or 'batman' in the title and I'm not convinced that will be man of steel

True. Yeah, it won't be MOS.

[HighFivingMF]

True. Yeah, it won't be MOS.

No, odds are it'll make a pretty penny. They're expecting Begins-type numbers and good word of mouth then go for the big numbers with the sequel like Nolan's Bat movies.

[Gamma Burst]

They're expecting too much.

[Ultimatehero]

Don't think they're expecting big numbers this time around. Amazing Spider-Man is likely to show that reboots are all lower than their predecessors - the gold is in the sequel. Or at least that seems to be the pattern from Batman Begins.

[HighFivingMF]

They're expecting too much.

Or you're expecting too little?

[Rockstar]

Warner Bros: The Movie.

Since the drama behind the scenes is more interesting than anything they put onscreen.


Starring:


Leonardo DiCaprio as Christoper Nolan 'The Messiah'

http://www.topnews.in/files/Leonardo-DiCaprio_1.jpg

Jackie Earl Haley as Jeff Robinov

http://cdn-images.hollywood.com/cms/294x255/3597488.jpg

Johnny Depp as Tim Burton

http://sobadsogood.com/wp-content/uploads/dark-shadows-johnny-depp-movie-trailer.jpg

Jack Black as Geoff Johns

http://d35pkeb05qrns1.cloudfront.net/preset_12/news/jack-black-kca-promo-400.jpg

Sean Hayes as Bryan Singer

http://images.buddytv.com/articles/will-and-grace/image/sean-1.jpg

Ian McKellen as Joel Schumacher

http://i2.listal.com/image/904330/300.jpg

Tom Berenger as Jon Peters

http://www.ambienceofmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/tom-berenger-inception.jpg

Kevin Smith as Kevin Smith

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/carolpinchefsky/files/2012/03/KevinSmith.jpg

[craigdbfan]

I'd watch it.

[DoomsdayApex]

True. Yeah, it won't be MOS.

And you know this how? Oh right, you don't.

Christopher Nolan's name alone guarantees 400 million at the box office for MoS.

[DoomsdayApex]

Warner Bros: The Movie.

Since the drama behind the scenes is more interesting than anything they put onscreen.


Starring:


Leonardo DiCaprio as Christoper Nolan 'The Messiah'

http://www.topnews.in/files/Leonardo-DiCaprio_1.jpg

Jackie Earl Haley as Jeff Robinov

http://cdn-images.hollywood.com/cms/294x255/3597488.jpg

Johnny Depp as Tim Burton

http://sobadsogood.com/wp-content/uploads/dark-shadows-johnny-depp-movie-trailer.jpg

Jack Black as Geoff Johns

http://d35pkeb05qrns1.cloudfront.net/preset_12/news/jack-black-kca-promo-400.jpg

Sean Hayes as Bryan Singer

http://images.buddytv.com/articles/will-and-grace/image/sean-1.jpg

Ian McKellen as Joel Schumacher

http://i2.listal.com/image/904330/300.jpg

Tom Berenger as Jon Peters

http://www.ambienceofmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/tom-berenger-inception.jpg

Kevin Smith as Kevin Smith

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/carolpinchefsky/files/2012/03/KevinSmith.jpg

:hehe:

Movie event of year. I see six oscars. :o

[Gamma Burst]

And you know this how? Oh right, you don't.

Christopher Nolan's name alone guarantees 400 million at the box office for MoS.

Delusions of a nolanite...

[DoomsdayApex]

Delusions of a nolanite...

Delusions?

You're obviously either ignorant or doltish. Christopher Nolan is a brand name nowadays.

A teaser before TDKR will get that point across.

However, if you're so confident in your words/predictions, then I propose a sig bet. You up to it?

[Gamma Burst]

Delusions?

You're obviously either ignorant or doltish. Christopher Nolan is a brand name nowadays.

A teaser before TDKR will get that point across.

However, if you're so confident in your words/predictions, then I propose a sig bet. You up to it?

I'm neither, I can assure you. I have a brain, quite good one, unlike you.:yay:
And sig bets? How old are you?

[Ultimatehero]

Dude, there is no way it's making 400 mill. That number is PUSHING it way too far.

It's going to have skeptical audiences way of it due to 'Superman Returns' like all other reboots and response, HOWEVER Nolan's name will likely (hopefully) off set that. But there is no way it will break 400 domestic. I'm keeping modest in seeing it performing just okay due to SR, not getting hopes up. But 400 mill? No way.

It would be the THIRD superhero movie to do that. And for one right out of the gate? Not gonna happen. In the 350 mill range, possible. But no way is it going to be that big. I mean, you do realize what that number amount means in relation to the genre right? And that it would be the FIRST to open that high as a first film in a superhero franchise outside of Spider-Man 1?

[DoomsdayApex]

I'm neither, I can assure you. I have a brain, quite good one, unlike you.:yay:
And sig bets? How old are you?

Really? I'm astonished. :o

Hey, I'm not the one making baseless claims here. If you truly believe in your prediction, then put your dignity on the line.

[DoomsdayApex]

Dude, there is no way it's making 400 mill. That number is PUSHING it way too far.

It's going to have skeptical audiences way of it due to 'Superman Returns' like all other reboots and response, HOWEVER Nolan's name will likely (hopefully) off set that. But there is no way it will break 400 domestic. I'm keeping modest in seeing it performing just okay due to SR, not getting hopes up. But 400 mill? No way.

It would be the THIRD superhero movie to do that. And for one right out of the gate? Not gonna happen. In the 350 mill range, possible. But no way is it going to be that big.

Whoa, I never said 400 million DM. I meant 400 million WW.

[Ultimatehero]

Okay, that sounds a little more realistic lol. Hey, some Nolan die hards may have actually put it up there domestic saying since Spider-Man 1 did it, TDK did it, and TDKR is likely to do it - Superman could possibly do it, without taking into account Spidey 1 was kinda lightning in a bottle (I'd say a large part due to 9/11 and needing a hero at that time) and the other due to being sequels (TDK, cultural).

[Bruce_Begins]

Warner Bros: The Movie.

Since the drama behind the scenes is more interesting than anything they put onscreen.


Starring:


Leonardo DiCaprio as Christoper Nolan 'The Messiah'

http://www.topnews.in/files/Leonardo-DiCaprio_1.jpg

Jackie Earl Haley as Jeff Robinov

http://cdn-images.hollywood.com/cms/294x255/3597488.jpg

Johnny Depp as Tim Burton

http://sobadsogood.com/wp-content/uploads/dark-shadows-johnny-depp-movie-trailer.jpg

Jack Black as Geoff Johns

http://d35pkeb05qrns1.cloudfront.net/preset_12/news/jack-black-kca-promo-400.jpg

Sean Hayes as Bryan Singer

http://images.buddytv.com/articles/will-and-grace/image/sean-1.jpg

Ian McKellen as Joel Schumacher

http://i2.listal.com/image/904330/300.jpg

Tom Berenger as Jon Peters

http://www.ambienceofmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/tom-berenger-inception.jpg

Kevin Smith as Kevin Smith

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/carolpinchefsky/files/2012/03/KevinSmith.jpg
:pal: :applaud

[Gamma Burst]

Really? I'm astonished. :o

Hey, I'm not the one making baseless claims here. If you truly believe in your prediction, then put your dignity on the line.

Come on..It's not hard to understand, even for the most brainless of the nolanites: people don't exactly care for a superman movie nowadays, and no director (even if it's a ''household'' name) can guarantee it will make money, specially if it's a bad movie.Household names have their share of bombs/underperformers too. Nolan is only a producer anyway...
Again, before talking about dignity, start behaving like an adult, son.

[DoomsdayApex]

Okay, that sounds a little more realistic lol. Hey, some Nolan die hards may have actually put it up there domestic saying since Spider-Man 1 did it, TDK did it, and TDKR is likely to do it - Superman could possibly do it, without taking into account Spidey 1 was kinda lightning in a bottle (I'd say a large part due to 9/11 and needing a hero at that time) and the other due to being sequels (TDK, cultural).

MoS making 400 million DM is kinda out there simply because it's an origin film, but if the writing is excellent, the acting is top-notch and action/SFX are jaw-dropping, then it's possible.

Nolan's name will definitely play a factor in bringing in a crowd.

[DoomsdayApex]

Come on..It's not hard to understand, even for the most brainless of the nolanites: people don't exactly care for a superman movie nowadays, and no director (even if it's a ''household'' name) can guarantee it will make money, specially if it's a bad movie.Household names have their share of bombs/underperformers too. Nolan is only a producer anyway...
Again, before talking about dignity, start behaving like an adult, son.

I ain't your son, brah.

Hey, put your 'money' where your mouth is -- I sense is the proper expression, at this endeavor. You're clearly not an adult anyways.

[Ultimatehero]

Come on..It's not hard to understand, even for the most brainless of the nolanites: people don't care for a superman movie, and no director (even if it's a ''household'' name) can guarantee it will make money, specially if it's a bad movie. Nolan is only a producer anyway...
Again, before talking about dignity, start behaving like an adult, son.

Dude, if people didn't care about 'Superman' people wouldn't still hold the character up culturally. However what they do want is A GOOD SUPERMAN FILM. The last film provided little to no action. One shove of a planet. People complained. It was also slightly after 'Smallville' was in it's prime where we saw Superman actually fighting. You could easily catch Superman on TV. Mix that in with poor word of mouth, it opened big then dropped A LOT - if G.A. overall liked SR it would have done much MUCH better. Despite mixed word SR still pulled in 200 mill, now imagine good word.

And no, no director can guarantee a movie makes money. However, how are you all of a sudden saying MOS is going to be a 'bad movie'? Do you have a crystal ball or something we don't know about? No? Didn't think so. However a name director CAN improve a movie's chances at the box office. If you say otherwise, seriously? Come on, get with the program. They don't market the hell out of people behind the camera sometimes for the hell of it.

Yep, Nolan's only a producer. But will general audience see this? Nope. You are are damned guaranteed WB is going to mind-f the audience as much as possible. 'FROM THE CREATORS OF BATMAN BEGINS AND THE DARK KNIGHT AND THE DARK KNIGHT RISES COMES...' 'FROM THE DIRECTOR OF BATMAN BEGINS AND THE DARK KNIGHT AND THE KNIGHT RISES COMES'.... 'FROM THE TEAM BEHIND BATMAN BEGINS AND THE DARK KNIGHT AND THE DARK KNIGHT RISES COMES.' The only way a majority of people would know is if it's marketed as a Zach Snyder movie, which I doubt it will be. They'll enforce Nolan's name. Not telling the truth? Not necessarily, just not telling the whole truth. Can they do that? Advertisers do it all the time.

[Bruce_Begins]

Whether the movie is about Superman (again) or Spider-man (again) is not a problem, people decide to go to a movie or to avoid it, based on Trailers, wom, major critics reviews and buzz surrounding it.

If the movie is good enough, it will get success, maybe not a spectacular success but a moderate success, that is what all Superman fans are hoping for - a moderate success if the movie turns out to be good, if I have to put some number - It would be in the range of 400 mil to 450 mil. Worldwide.

[Gamma Burst]

Dude, if people didn't care about 'Superman' people wouldn't still hold the character up culturally. However what they do want is A GOOD SUPERMAN FILM. The last film provided little to no action. One shove of a planet. People complained. It was also slightly after 'Smallville' was in it's prime where we saw Superman actually fighting. You could easily catch Superman on TV. Mix that in with poor word of mouth, it opened big then dropped A LOT - if G.A. overall liked SR it would have done much MUCH better.

And no, no director can guarantee a movie makes money. However, how are you all of a sudden saying MOS is going to be a 'bad movie'? Do you have a crystal ball or something we don't know about? No? Didn't think so. However a name director CAN improve a movie's chances at the box office.

Yep, Nolan's only a producer. But will general audience see this? Nope. You are are damned guaranteed WB is going to mind-f the audience as much as possible. 'FROM THE CREATORS OF BATMAN BEGINS AND THE DARK KNIGHT AND THE DARK KNIGHT RISES COMES...' 'FROM THE DIRECTOR OF BATMAN BEGINS AND THE DARK KNIGHT AND THE KNIGHT RISES COMES'.... 'FROM THE TEAM BEHIND BATMAN BEGINS AND THE DARK KNIGHT AND THE DARK KNIGHT RISES COMES.' The only way a majority of people would know is if it's marketed as a Zach Snyder movie, which I doubt it will be. They'll enforce Nolan's name. Not telling the truth? Not necessarily, just not telling the whole truth. Can they do that? Advertisers do it all the time.

I get what you're talking about. My only problem in this discussion is the assumption that the mere mention of nolan's name guarantees a good b.o.
That's beyond stupid. If it's a good movie, it can make some money, even with the low interest.
Can't see it becoming a big franchise, as i've stated before.

[Ultimatehero]

The mere notion of Nolan's name doesn't guarantee, but it does help. It'll likely erase the negativity from 'Superman Returns.'

The first film, nope. If it gets good reviews and good word of mouth? DC will definitely jump on a sequel and I can guarantee domestically that sequel will at the very least earn 360 million if not more. Basically up there with the other heroes. Now it's just up to them to re-gain the trust.

Superman's already a gigantic property, just need someone to give the audience a Superman they can get behind. And I think the world is waiting. He just needs to be able to fly for us to believe a man can fly. Again. And I just realized how corny I sound. It feels like Superman is dead not because the world stopped believing, but because we've so far film-wise have had no one to look up to in the red and blue since Christopher Reeves inspired us all. And I think even if they capture a shred of that this time there will be a certain sentimentality and welcoming back an old friend. What SR should have been to most in the general audiences, but it didn't live up to the name.

[Bruce_Begins]

I get what you're talking about. My only problem in this discussion is the assumption that the mere mention of nolan's name guarantees a good b.o.
That's beyond stupid. If it's a good movie, it can make some money, even with the low interest.
Can't see it becoming a big franchise, as i've stated before.

First movie that starts a reboot is not expected to do well (WB foolishly expected Superman Returns to do Raimi's Spider-man like numbers, when they should have expected batman begins type overall collections.)

As for "Superman cannot become a big franchise" this is just your opinion and it has some potential otherwise they (WB) would not be throwing away money at it, siegel and shuster's heirs would have gotten their rights back by now, and we would have seen Mark Toberoff's production company making a Superman movie by now.

[Ultimatehero]

/\ Most likely the reason why there was no sequel wasn't the money issues. It was the mixed reception it got from critics and general audiences.

If it was warmly received with good reviews, good word of mouth, and still got those numbers? A sequel would be likely to catch on. For example, X-Men: Second Class will rake in A LOT of money due to the reception of it's first film. It got back the trust lost from 'Wolverine' and 'X3.'

This is coming from a guy who liked 'Superman Returns,' just remembered having to defend it to the G.A. on why I thought it was a good film.

[metaphysician]

*cough* I'm a guy who is uncertain about MoS, and even I think its probably going to do Iron Man numbers, unless its outright terrible. The Superman name is worth more than a lot of people think, following Superman Returns. It just needs a good movie that isn't a quasi-sequel to a 20 year old film, centered around the dramatic conflict of 'Superman, deadbeat dad.'

[Tobias]

That's beyond stupid. If it's a good movie, it can make some money, even with the low interest.
Can't see it becoming a big franchise, as i've stated before.

WB seems to agree with this as they stated in court they were not sure Superman is viable anymore. WB was shelving the franchise until ordered not to.

400 million will be tough for MOS - I'd expect more like 350 - 375 WW along the lines of Cap. Even if it does 400 million WW those number will be disastrous. With bigger stars than SR and Nolan to do just SR numbers will prove the franchise is nt big-time.

It's not just Spidey and Ironman that did big numbers on their first outings. Thor made almost 500 milion WW. Way more than SR.

[Tobias]

/\ Most likely the reason why there was no sequel wasn't the money issues. It was the mixed reception it got from critics and general audiences.

If it was warmly received with good reviews, good word of mouth, and still got those numbers? A sequel would be likely to catch on. For example, X-Men: Second Class will rake in A LOT of money due to the reception of it's first film. It got back the trust lost from 'Wolverine' and 'X3.'

This is coming from a guy who liked 'Superman Returns,' just remembered having to defend it to the G.A. on why I thought it was a good film.


IMO it was the money. WB in the end barely broke even on SR. The DVD sales were bad and I'm told that is trailing indicator that studios use when the theatre run isn't great for a film.

BB's theate run was so, so but it did massive on DVD and that cinched the sequel.

[HighFivingMF]

Superman Returns was getting a sequel, but Singer put it on hold for Valkyrie. Then the writer's strike. Then they decided to go with a reboot. If everything went smoothly, there would have been a copy of the Returns sequel on your DVD/Blu-Ray shelf right now.

[metaphysician]

WB seems to agree with this as they stated in court they were not sure Superman is viable anymore. WB was shelving the franchise until ordered not to.

400 million will be tough for MOS - I'd expect more like 350 - 375 WW along the lines of Cap. Even if it does 400 million WW those number will be disastrous. With bigger stars than SR and Nolan to do just SR numbers will prove the franchise is nt big-time.

It's not just Spidey and Ironman that did big numbers on their first outings. Thor made almost 500 milion WW. Way more than SR.

Be fair, WB said that, in the context of a legal battle. They had an interest, at least theoretically, in "Superman not being marketable at this time", because it would let them stiff the estates on royalties.

[Sardaukar]

Superman Returns was getting a sequel, but Singer put it on hold for Valkyrie. Then the writer's strike. Then they decided to go with a reboot. If everything went smoothly, there would have been a copy of the Returns sequel on your DVD/Blu-Ray shelf right now.

If DC had truly wanted a Superman Returns sequel, they would have gotten one.

[HighFivingMF]

If DC had truly wanted a Superman Returns sequel, they would have gotten one.

OK... :huh:

[The Guard]

I'm not talking about any specific example, alright lamen terms... IF shared universe...

Flash 1
JLA
Flash 2

I could have sworn you had said JLA, Flash, JLA 2 at first. Six of one half dozen of the other, I suppose.

I know you’re not talking any specific example. Which makes your concerns somewhat broad, and amounting to "Something bad could happen with characters or continuity". Well, yeah...if creators are stupid and don't use any logic in their execution of the stories and character. I can say “They might vaguely screw up continuity” all I want. It doesn’t mean they simply will if there are multiple franchises.

Since you're apparently a professional screenwriter, why don't you try giving me some examples, since you still haven’t provided any at all, and are just making vague statements about Flash developing as a character in a way in JL that would affect his solo films, or vice versa.

What character arc for Flash do you think would/could happen, that will make problems for a solo FLASH flm after JUSTICE LEAGUE, and between JUSTICE LEAGUE 2, or make problems for a JUSTICE LEAGUE film after FLASH, and before FLASH 2?

You wouldn't have the character at the same point in his life, character arc, through all three films. Obviously.

You're right. But neither would JUSTICE LEAGUE neccessarily revolve around Flash's life. Neither would Flash neccessarily develop in a manner in JL that it would affect his solo films, which do focus more on his personal life.

There is where you run into difficulty and you'd still have said

JLA
Flash 1
JLA 2

Obviously. Can't be any clearer than that.

Actually, you can be clearer than that. You could give examples. Instead, you seem to be just assuming that Flash would be developed in a way that would make problems for another franchise, and assuming there would be such a problem. I don't think that's neccessarily the case.

Stand-alone JLA with no ties to the solo films is a completely different thing and has NO complications about it (unless it uses the same cast which you can just see them saying now: "yes, Bale plays Batman in both - but JLA Batman has absolutely nothing outside of character name to do with solo Batman, it's two different universes with nothing in common outside of character name, actor and his physical appearance!").

You're right. They could do it that way, and that might well work, and using the same actor for different franchises would probably lead to some questions. But this is my point: While it could be, and I won't argue that it might not work, it doesn't need to be two universes for any particular reason. It just needs to be handled with a little common sense.

It seems you get that part, just not the wording and what it would take to ensure that IF shared universe. It would be the options after the above # 1.

No, trust me, I get all of it. I just don't think you understand that it wouldn't neccessarily need to be screwed up to have:

Flash
Justice League
Flash 2

or

Justice League
Flash
Justice League 2

It's not what happens to the character. I have no idea how you think I'm saying that.

If you're talking about developing a character, and that causing issues between franchises, then yes, it IS about what happens to the character, and how they react to that as a character. Otherwise, give some examples and we will discuss further.

All I know about JLA is stand-alone series with different actors, that's all. Know that past, now, and future so you won't get confused again.

I'm not confused. Haven't been confused.

I'm saying for those careful considerations in keeping whatever arc it is consistent IF shared universe you need communication and that it doesn't matter where JLA is placed in the line - the same complications and needing to pay careful consideration comes into account.

I'm aware of this.

Not really into quoting, but that was an explanation of what cain got wrong/confused about.

I see. Well, when you're not into quoting, then you need to be specific if you're going to bring up specific examples. Otherwise, I often have no idea what you're talking about.

NOW ABOUT COMMUNICATION:

1) Executives and VPs often know little else beyond their ONE film that they are working on individually, and very very little about the film their co-worker is working on.
2) Production companies don't communicate, they're all practically strangers to each other. Their films are kept confidential even from the higher-ups in other various related production companies.
3) Right now the difficulty of getting a DC film made is having three heads, adding more will likely make it even more difficult, but okay - let's say do that anyways. There are other things that need to get fixed such as finding a means to get everyone on the same page. And making knowledge about these properties accessible to those working within WB at higher levels of creative command (executives, Vice President). So there are changes that need to be implemented to have the communication open which it is currently not.
4) #1 is probably due to some reason that I'm unaware of, the most obvious one is that their schedules are hectic which doesn't give them the amount of time needed to have detailed meetings like other companies outside of the film industry. Most meetings they do have is about WHAT OTHER SCRIPTS/PROPERTIES TO PURCHASE - detailed story development is left solely to the person charge of whatever film they are behind. Plus not too mention the VPs would be spear-heading another blockbuster project while keeping the creative development side afloat alongside trying to get their DC heads together - overall this would likely cause further delay. Possible? Yes. Anything is. Beyond complicated and maybe bringing other conflicts into play? Without a doubt. As said changes need to come into play if one wants a shared universe. A stand alone JLA film with no ties to the solo films = remarkably easy and simple in comparison, which is why that's the route WB initially took rather than casting Bale & Routh in their possible JLA film years ago.

I KNOW.

You've repeated yourself ad nauseum for the last half a week. It's actually getting kind of annoying.

[The Guard]

I don’t think anyone can say how much MAN OF STEEL will make. SUPERMAN RETURNS was not incredibly well received. Other superhero movies have been. Nolan’s film have been huge lately. Nolan may be a name, and to some degree, so is Snyder, but Henry Cavill and Michael Shannon aren’t huge names. Amy Adams isn’t really an enormous box office draw on her own, and let’s face it, Kevin Costner and company aren’t powerhouse draws.

But none of that proves how MAN OF STEEL will do. If people buy into the action, and odn’t hate Superman (which I don’t think they do) I’d expect it to make back its budget, and some more money for WB. Will it clean up? Hopefully. We’ll see.

[Tobias]

Don't think they're expecting big numbers this time around. Amazing Spider-Man is likely to show that reboots are all lower than their predecessors - the gold is in the sequel. Or at least that seems to be the pattern from Batman Begins.

The gold is not always in the sequel.

Take FF for instance.

Superman is not Batman and I don't think it follows this golden" rule.

If MOS even makes it to 400 million WW WB is not necessatily going to say oh yeah it did so, so like BB but a sequel will do 600 or 700 million like TDK.

I think WB is more likely to say 400 million is as good as a Superman film can do and given the additional cost of a sequel - upping the villain/action - it's simply not financially viable.

[Ultimatehero]

And dude, touche, you annoy me just as much if not more so.

I don't know Flash, I do know AQUAMAN for example. As said on previous boards, that's the hero I'd love to tackle. Flash was just a random name, if you weren't able to catch up on that by now - thought I'd use lamen terms finally - so I wouldn't go anywhere near him since I couldn't do him justice.

AQUAMAN 1: Arthur isn't too fond of his origins thinking he was merely abandoned and left to die, but returns and finds out that what he thought he knew was wrong and sets out to reclaim his birth right. By the end he isn't king of Atlantis in his being purely just in title alone, but he accepts it.

AQUAMAN 2: Arthur is hesitant about the responsibilities he now has a king. How will he unite his life on the land with his life in the sea? It's where he steps up to truly become a hero. By the end he is close to being the Aquaman we all know, but not yet. He's still finding his way.

AQUAMAN 3: Everything has led up to this moment. Arthur has to accept him and take on the full meaning of being ruler of the seven seas. At the end he is finally the Aquaman we all know and love at the top of his game. He's no longer a boy, but a strong king.

Or just look at THOR which I'm guessing will have a similar arc in mind. Iron Man definitely seems to, especially with 'Extremis' looking to be IRON MAN 3 having everything come full circle. Or Captain America with the 'MAN OUT OF TIME' arc being his central core in 'The Avengers' leaving him at place with CAP 2 is bound to pick back up. In order to pull off that kind of continuity everyone needs to be on the same page. It'd be beyond difficult to be working on AQUAMAN and having no idea what the JUSTICE LEAGUE team is doing.

Throwing 'Justice League' somewhere in the middle, you would obviously need to be careful with what came before and what comes after. And this is where communication comes into play. As a writer it would be beyond difficult keeping everything in line if say someone jumps into the middle with Aquaman and makes him full on king of the seven seas after the first film when the first solo film doesn't show him at that point yet. And while that is going on, I'd be working on Aquaman 2. Creating one step forward and two steps back. It would be a continuity mess. Why? Because I wouldn't be given information on what the JLA team is doing because of the current set-up over at WB. And yeah, you'll probably say I'm annoying you, well guess what dude - as said in the beginning - touche. As a creative guy on AQUAMAN and to do the best job possible? I'd need information on the JLA which at this present juncture - if I was already that high up - would not be provided to me because of how things are currently working.

As said, know little about Flash to come up with any notion, but my mind already has a semi-blueprint of what Aquaman's first film should be and a slight notion of what would come after (although unsure on what minor details to do with the character, events to come into play, just what his overall arc should be based on where I'd start him off in the first film).

ALSO if you say part of the job is to do as the company tells me, yes, but still to do the best at my job that I can do I'd still need to know where they plan on taking the character in JLA so I can do my best to lead into it and lead out of it in the sequel. Not having that knowledge would be like them telling me "we need you to hit a bullseye on this target - now, we're going to blind-fold you." Over at MARVEL the team behind the solo films AREN'T blind-folded. Teams on television series aren't blind-folded. Here, at present working conditions, I would be. I need to be able to see to hit that bullseye on the mark for them and the audience. Doing what studio heads want on a studio level screenplay is the easy part, trust me - I've done it before - no one having a clue where that bullseye needs to land because of lack of information on all sides sounds beyond a challenge and like a major handicap. One DC currently has and MARVEL doesn't.

[The Guard]

And dude, touche, you annoy me just as much if not more so.

Ok...

See, I assume you're talking to me, but I wouldn't know that for sure, because you responded right after someone else's post, and because you call everyone "Dude".

Here's how to quote:

[write the word quote]

[/write the word quote]

and put the quote in between the brackets.

I don't know Flash, I do know AQUAMAN for example. As said on previous boards, that's the hero I'd love to tackle. Flash was just a random name, if you weren't able to catch up on that by now - thought I'd use lamen terms finally - so I wouldn't go anywhere near him since I couldn't do him justice.

If you don't know Flash, maybe you shouldn't be obsessing over how his character development could affect JLA. Look, the same issue that you stated could apply to Flash, also applies to Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Aquaman, or Martian Manhunter, or any other solo character. How are ANY of them going to develop in a JLA film, in the context of the JLA, that would negatively affect continuity of their solo films? That's what I'm asking you to tell me, and for examples of.

AQUAMAN 1: Arthur isn't too fond of his origins thinking he was merely abandoned and left to die, but returns and finds out that what he thought he knew was wrong and sets out to reclaim his birth right. By the end he isn't king of Atlantis in his being purely just in title alone, but he accepts it.

AQUAMAN 2: Arthur is hesitant about the responsibilities he now has a king. How will he unite his life on the land with his life in the sea? It's where he steps up to truly become a hero. By the end he is close to being the Aquaman we all know, but not yet. He's still finding his way.

AQUAMAN 3: Everything has led up to this moment. Arthur has to accept him and take on the full meaning of being ruler of the seven seas. At the end he is finally the Aquaman we all know and love at the top of his game. He's no longer a boy, but a strong king.

That's a pretty decent basic idea. But none of what you wrote shows me how this gradual development could affect his portrayal in a JL film, or how a JL film could not be fit in between the Aquaman movies that doesn't contradict it. Here. I'll show you how this won't affect a JLA franchise.

AQUAMAN 1: Arthur isn't too fond of his origins thinking he was merely abandoned and left to die, but returns and finds out that what he thought he knew was wrong and sets out to reclaim his birth right. By the end he isn't king of Atlantis in his being purely just in title alone, but he accepts it.

THE JUSTICE LEAGUE
Aquaman doesn't discuss his issues about being king in Atlantis in detail with the league members, partially because he doesn't trust him entirely, partially because he's a private person, and because it's not important or relevant to whats going on with the JLA itself. He hints that he has some issues of his own as he gets to know the others better and trust them more, which gives him commonality with say, Diana, but if he does mention his kingly issues, he does so in a manner vague or broad enough that it doesn't prevent the idea of his issues with his king duties being explored further or in a different manner in his own solo franchise. Aquaman, having been involved in the JLA for a while, starts to work on becoming part of a team with the JLA instead of just doing things his way, and tries to accept leaving his kingdom, where he has sworn to protects Atlanteans as his birthright and duty, and tries to accept protecting the human beings with the JLA, instead of expressing bias and fear against them based on his previous experiences with them, again, which can be somewhat ambiguous, or tied to what happens in the JLA film itself.

AQUAMAN 2: Arthur is hesitant about the responsibilities he now has a king. How will he unite his life on the land with his life in the sea? It's where he steps up to truly become a hero. By the end he is close to being the Aquaman we all know, but not yet. He's still finding his way.

THE JUSTICE LEAGUE 2
Aquaman is, as a member of a team now, still finding his way as a member of The Justice League, dealing with his existing biases a little better, and now recognizing that he has great duties to the people of Atlantis, based on whatever has happened in the time he was last away from the league, the details of which are irrelevant. Also, based on the events from the previous JL movie, he now feels he has a duty to the league and humanity, is becoming better friends and teammates with the people he originally distrusted, and is developing new types of teamwork and communication skills, not just giving orders, as a king or future king would do, but as part of an alliance of heroes.

AQUAMAN 3: Everything has led up to this moment. Arthur has to accept him and take on the full meaning of being ruler of the seven seas. At the end he is finally the Aquaman we all know and love at the top of his game. He's no longer a boy, but a strong king.

THE JUSTICE LEAGUE 3
Everything has led up to this moment. Aquaman is now becoming a key cog in the Justice League, and a great leader in their ranks, who is learning to balance his responsibilies to Atlantis with his duties toward land dwellers as a member of the League. He becomes the balanced Aquaman we know and love, a great king and hero of Atlantis, and a key member of the Justice League, and a beloved hero of humanity.

And through all this, he quite simply doesn't get killed off (unless he comes back to life in the same film) unless his solo film creators communicate with the JL and filmmakers and go "Hey, can we kill off Aquaman?", or vice vera.

And this is bare bones, just a few sentences, and Aquaman is about the seventh most familiar character to me in the JLA, and I came up with it in two or three minutes. This can be extrapolated into a larger, somewhat more detailed arc. But you get the idea. There are ways, if it is handled with some logic, to develop a character, and to explore a characters key themes, without treading on what the other franchise/solo films are doing and without knowing what the other films are doing.

Its a little unfair, because I knew what you were doing with Aquaman. Let's try it again, with a different character, and the only stipulations being that we don't kill them off in either franchise.

I'll come with their JLA arcs, and you come up with their solo film arc, and we'll compare, and see if there would be major issues.

Or just look at THOR which I'm guessing will have a similar arc in mind.

Iron Man definitely seems to, especially with 'Extremis' looking to be IRON MAN 3 having everything come full circle.

Or Captain America with the 'MAN OUT OF TIME' arc being his central core in 'The Avengers' leaving him at place with CAP 2 is bound to pick back up.

In order to pull off that kind of continuity everyone needs to be on the same page. It'd be beyond difficult to be working on AQUAMAN and having no idea what the JUSTICE LEAGUE team is doing.

Yes. In order to do THAT, everyone would need to be on the same page. But DC/WB may not neccessarily be doing that. And I've never said they will, or that they should.

It shouldn't be beyond difficult to write an Aquaman movie and not know what is going on in a JLA movie, especially if, as I've suggested, a studo mandates it so that Aquaman's tory in his solo films isnt written in a way so as to impede the JLA films portrayal of the JLA.

Because it's still an Aquaman film. You still have to service the character, and develop him, and honor his mythology. And if you're concerned about what's going in a Justice Leagfue movie (and what, reasonably WOULD be regarding Aquaman? He's a supporting character to most people), you shouldn't be writing an Aquaman film, period.

Throwing 'Justice League' somewhere in the middle, you would obviously need to be careful with what came before and what comes after.

Well yeah, you would need to be careful. You always need to be careful in writing, to approach it with some sensitivity. You would either need to know what was going on, or if you didn't, then you would need to write your script in a way that doesn't affect the JLA continuity, period. Which is what I am advocating.

This means that if you, as a writer, are aware, or unsure if your idea will affect a future JL film, you shouldn't use JLA centric elements in an Aquaman film. You shouldn't use specifics about Aquaman's personal life in a JLA movie.

And this is where communication comes into play. As a writer it would be beyond difficult keeping everything in line if say someone jumps into the middle with Aquaman and makes him full on king of the seven seas after the first film when the first solo film doesn't show him at that point yet.

Here's a crazy idea. Maybe JLA takes place AFTER Aquaman becomes Aquaman. Since he's, you know, Aquaman and known to the world and the other heroes are around. Seems pretty logical to me.

And while that is going on, I'd be working on Aquaman 2. Creating one step forward and two steps back.

Which steps?

It would be a continuity mess. Why? Because I wouldn't be given information on what the JLA team is doing because of the current set-up over at WB.

What continuity elements would you be working on in an Aquaman 2 film that would affect ewhat happens to him in JL2?

And yeah, you'll probably say I'm annoying you, well guess what dude - as said in the beginning - touche. As a creative guy on AQUAMAN and to do the best job possible? I'd need information on the JLA which at this present juncture - if I was already that high up - would not be provided to me because of how things are currently working.

If you can't write an Aquaman story that doesn't screw up the idea of Aquaman being in the JLA at some point in the future, then you just shouldn't be working on the Aquaman project. Because you would lack focus.

As said, know little about Flash to come up with any notion, but my mind already has a semi-blueprint of what Aquaman's first film should be and a slight notion of what would come after (although unsure on what minor details to do with the character, events to come into play, just what his overall arc should be based on where I'd start him off in the first film).

And as I've shown, it doesn't neccessarily affect much of anything about JLA.

ALSO if you say part of the job is to do as the company tells me, yes, but still to do the best at my job that I can do I'd still need to know where they plan on taking the character in JLA so I can do my best to lead into it and lead out of it in the sequel.

No you wouldn't. Because if you didn't know what JLA was going to be, you could STILL do your best at just the character of Aquaman with the informaiton you have.

There's absolutely no rule that WB's superhero films must "lead into a JLA film", or that JLA's movies must be directly connected to or lead into further solo hero films. The comic books have gotten along fine this way for decades, with vague connections to the solo stories in JLA, and vague connections to JLA's events in solo stories.

Not having that knowledge would be like them telling me "we need you to hit a bullseye on this target - now, we're going to blind-fold you."

If the target you speak of is writing Aquaman's origin story, then you should damn well be able to try to hit a bullsye on that without knowing how JLA is going to use him. Because JLA should be irrelevant to that.

Over at MARVEL the team behind the solo films AREN'T blind-folded.

Teams on television series aren't blind-folded. Here, at present working conditions, I would be. I need to be able to see to hit that bullseye on the mark for them and the audience.

And that's an advantage they have over WB's superhero concepts. So what? You can still do your best, and still write a great movie that honors the character and his mythos.

This need to know what is going on with a future/concurrent JLA film is your obsession, and does not need to be a limitation for your solo series. If WB cares about connecting them, they will establish a line of communication somehow.

And if WB comes to me and says "Hey, we're going to greenlight a Batman reboot film, and we want it to be an origin story, and don't worry about what happens in the JLA movie and how they're connected", I'm still writing the hell out of that story if they approve the basic pitch. Worrying about how it connects to JLA is not an issue at that point. It's not my job to connect the solo franchises to JLA, unless they make it clear that it is, and give me the resources to do so. It's my job to make sure there aren't issues between solo and JLA films. Its their job to faciliate connections.

Doing what studio heads want on a studio level screenplay is the easy part, trust me - I've done it before - no one having a clue where that bullseye needs to land because of lack of information on all sides sounds beyond a challenge and like a major handicap. One DC currently has and MARVEL doesn't.

That's true. How about that? What DC does have is fantastic characters whose potential isn't limited by not being able to directly reference a future of existing JLA franchise.

[rayc1971]

The gold is not always in the sequel.

Take FF for instance.

Superman is not Batman and I don't think it follows this golden" rule.

If MOS even makes it to 400 million WW WB is not necessatily going to say oh yeah it did so, so like BB but a sequel will do 600 or 700 million like TDK.

I think WB is more likely to say 400 million is as good as a Superman film can do and given the additional cost of a sequel - upping the villain/action - it's simply not financially viable.
people seem to forget superman returns had a huge budget and no action.man of steels budget is 175mill if it does 250 to 300mill domestic and 200 overseas thats a success.so 500mill worldwide will get you sequel.

[Ultimatehero]

Dude, I don't quote. Let me put that again - just to get through to you - I don't quote. Not I don't know how to quote. Not I can't quote. I don't quote. Simple. Good. I have more important things to do with my life than break down every single thing I'm replying to. I have a life and a career that takes up most of my time.

It seems like you're a smart guy. So you'd know I wasn't talking about just Flash. I know little about Flash. And as I already stated Flash was just a name to use. Nothing more. Nothing less. Good? Let's move on.

You don't always need to "write carefully." To make sure the characters and events come off as real, yes. But there is no real tight rope to walk. There is no possible impeding force. If you're writing 'INCEPTION' then yeah you need to be careful. Unless, everything just comes easy to me that I don't see red flags everywhere that I need to watch out for. The character is the character, it lives, breathes, and does what it does naturally - it doesn't have an evil twin or doppelganger to possibly shake things up.

The steps thing is a phrase, pretty sure you know that...

Now if JLA is careful in the way you propose, not mentioning any single thing and really not taking the character to any place arc-wise, then yes that would undoubtably make it easier. Solo films using JLA aspects to me is really far-fetched, also why I said events wouldn't matter - only character would, due to being from different cities whereas MARVEL is more tightly packed together.

And yes, IF shared universe was in the future you'd expect communication. There really isn't. So I'm not really worried, as an actual writer that could possibly get a hold of Aquaman. I don't see a shared universe happening any time soon. And if they do - yeah, IF they go your way of JLA not really shaping the characters to impact what comes before and after - that could work.

[The Boy Scout]

In order to pull off that kind of continuity everyone needs to be on the same page. It'd be beyond difficult to be working on AQUAMAN and having no idea what the JUSTICE LEAGUE team is doing.

Seriously? If you're unsure how to go forward with Aquaman after a Justice League movie, watch the movie and figure it out. It's not rocket science. I find it hard to believe that WB wouldn't tell you to watch that film before you wrote the sequel, or tell you to make changes to the script if you wrote it before JLA came out. This "problem" you're talking about isn't a problem at all.

And this is where communication comes into play.

I think they'd make an effort to communicate if they wanted to do it right. Doing the opposite would be asinine.

And while that is going on, I'd be working on Aquaman 2. Creating one step forward and two steps back. It would be a continuity mess. Why? Because I wouldn't be given information on what the JLA team is doing because of the current set-up over at WB. And yeah, you'll probably say I'm annoying you, well guess what dude - as said in the beginning - touche. As a creative guy on AQUAMAN and to do the best job possible? I'd need information on the JLA which at this present juncture - if I was already that high up - would not be provided to me because of how things are currently working.

There aren't any concrete plans to establish a shared universe right now, correct? But if there were, it'd be reasonable to assume that they would try to make sure everyone is on the same page. You've said several times that not doing so would be a continuity mess, and if you realize that, then surely they would come to the same realization?

[Ultimatehero]

Boy Scout, this may be hard for people not in the business - but typically there are a handful of films being made at the same time. Meaning Aquaman 2 may be being written at the same time that JLA is in production. For a MARVEL example - Cap, Thor, and Avengers were all being worked on at the same time. Iron Man 3, the script was most likely written when Avengers was filming because it seems like they're going to start shooting sometime soon. That's another example. Again, not talking events, talking character. It's not like you can just easily go back to the drawing board and in a matter of days change the character around - it takes time. However, as suggested by Guard, if JLA really has no impact character-wise then yeah that would make things easy for those working on the solo films.

Communication, You'd think so. Problem is it's hard to see that being the case after seeing how jumbled things can even become without a big undertaking as this would be. Also I see how difficult it would be to keep everything on the ball as things are as of late. Which I think is just something someone can really sense or get an appreciation of from being within studio walls and seeing how it is. As said, I was very confused by the seeming lack of firm communication myself. And somewhat still am. Also I gave the easiest way - give those high ups working on it free access to everything regarding it (which is not currently happening); this would be the surest way to ensure everyone is on the same page. Organizing meetings, know you didn't say it but others have, would be a logistical nightmare lol.

[The Boy Scout]

Boy Scout, this may be hard for people not in the business - but typically there are a handful of films being made at the same time.

No, I understand that. And I've read your other posts.

Meaning Aquaman 2 may be being written at the same time that JLA is in production.

I realized that. I addressed that in my post.

It's not like you can just easily go back to the drawing board and in a matter of days change the character around - it takes time.

You misunderstand me. I didn't mean to imply it'd only take a few days to do all that. To use a math analogy: the solution to a problem could be two. But the amount you have to work in to get that answer might not be as simple as taking one away from three.

However, as suggested by Guard, if JLA really has no impact character-wise then yeah that would make things easy for those working on the solo films.

I would think a JLA film would focus more on how the characters act when they're together more so than when they're alone. But you never know.

You'd think so. Problem is it's hard to see that being the case after seeing how jumbled things can even become without a big undertaking as this would be.

Which would justify changing things up a bit, no? To make things easier on everyone?

Also I gave the easiest way - give those high ups working on it free access to everything regarding it (which is not currently happening); this would be the surest way to ensure everyone is on the same page.

They'd do what they have to do, I think. As someone who works closely with them, could you see that happening? As an outsider, I can.

Organizing meetings, know you didn't say it but others have, would be a logistical nightmare lol.

To be honest, that's what I was getting at. If it's necessary to do so, schedule some meetings. I don't doubt it would be a logistical nightmare, but if the goal is to make money - and lots of it - I'd think most everyone would be willing to take one for the team.

[Ultimatehero]

I typed a huge long response to this and then my internet died, great.

Bullet-points then:
> Iron Man 3 shooting soon, writer didn't have luxury of seeing Avengers.
> Thor 2, probably saw Avengers, but writer can't take months changing things to fit in line with it. He had to know prior to seeing Avengers. Unless he continues on the script during filming, happens but isn't the best scenario.
> A couple of days was only an exaggeration. Potentially changing a character's dynamic and arc would take a long time. It's also what usually drives part of the theme. Everything is very connected most of the time. That this could be a difficult change. It's manageable for sure, but chances are you'd be thrown into the category of writers still working on the script while on the set and as said - that's not really a great area to be in.

SCHEDULES...
> VP's schedule is beyond hectic, has so many tasks bringing all these VPs together would be a nightmare - just as bringing actors together. It's the reason we only really got one JLA episode on 'Smallville.' Same here. Also they take extended business trips overseas from time to time to oversee production.
> Making money is important. But DC isn't their only way to make money. They have a blockbuster each year to pay attention to and numerous other films as well. They can't slow things down for something that isn't connected to them at a given time, they have to keep focus on their yearly demands. All MARVEL has to worry about is MARVEL films. Not so with these production companies.
> DC properties/blockbusters are under the VP always.
> These companies are so hectic, there is little communication within a company itself. Sometimes trades (Variety, Hollywood Reporter) knows things about said company before the higher-ups within said company know themselves. Big example of how hectic it is. Trust me, they're not incompetent - it's just that busy that things like that do happen.
> Computers are already hardwired to connect everyone there. But this data isn't shared. Now, they can't share everything - they are competing after all. However, they can share DC property information. This contains A LOT of information beyond just the script that the VP can browse through and remain updated on at his leisure. This ensures continued company workings and keeping up to date. This is not currently happening. This is the system used for individual films within companies. It can easily be applied here without worrying about finding the times where all the VPs aren't busy (which would be rare getting them all in one room together).

Think that answers everything, there was more - a lot more details before - and here's hoping the net doesn't shut off again lol...

NOTE: Just remembered your question, the whole opening documents within companies? Yes, I do see this as possible since where shared universes are concerned this is the easiest way for the companies to work together and at a time that best suits them.

[The Boy Scout]

I typed a huge long response to this and then my internet died, great.

If it makes you feel better, mine did too. So now I have to type this **** all over again. :dry:

So...

Iron Man 3 shooting soon, writer didn't have luxury of seeing Avengers.

Thor 2, probably saw Avengers, but writer can't take months changing things to fit in line with it. He had to know prior to seeing Avengers. Unless he continues on the script during filming, happens but isn't the best scenario.

What's your point? Everyone at Marvel Studios is on the same page. They communicate with each other and they know what's going to happen. Basically, what you're saying is for JLA to work, everyone is going to have to communicate, and that's what I've been stressing this whole time.

A couple of days was only an exaggeration.

I'm aware. :oldrazz:

Potentially changing a character's dynamic and arc would take a long time. It's also what usually drives part of the theme. Everything is very connected most of the time. That this could be a difficult change. It's manageable for sure, but chances are you'd be thrown into the category of writers still working on the script while on the set and as said - that's not really a great area to be in.

All the more reason for everyone to (at least somewhat) be on the same page. As the writer for Aquaman 2, you wouldn't need to know anything about Justice League other than the bits that are relevant to that character and his world.

I don't see why WB wouldn't make an effort to communicate. Just because it's not usually done doesn't mean it won't be done if it has to.

VP's schedule is beyond hectic, has so many tasks bringing all these VPs together would be a nightmare - just as bringing actors together. It's the reason we only really got one JLA episode on 'Smallville.' Same here. Also they take extended business trips overseas from time to time to oversee production.

Making money is important. But DC isn't their only way to make money. They have a blockbuster each year to pay attention to and numerous other films as well. They can't slow things down for something that isn't connected to them at a given time, they have to keep focus on their yearly demands. All MARVEL has to worry about is MARVEL films. Not so with these production companies.

DC properties/blockbusters are under the VP always.

These companies are so hectic, there is little communication within a company itself. Sometimes trades (Variety, Hollywood Reporter) knows things about said company before the higher-ups within said company know themselves. Big example of how hectic it is. Trust me, they're not incompetent - it's just that busy that things like that do happen.

Computers are already hardwired to connect everyone there. But this data isn't shared. Now, they can't share everything - they are competing after all. However, they can share DC property information. This contains A LOT of information beyond just the script that the VP can browse through and remain updated on at his leisure. This ensures continued company workings and keeping up to date. This is not currently happening. This is the system used for individual films within companies. It can easily be applied here without worrying about finding the times where all the VPs aren't busy (which would be rare getting them all in one room together).

Think that answers everything, there was more - a lot more details before - and here's hoping the net doesn't shut off again lol...

No, I assure you, this abridged version works a lot better for me. :woot:

I'm not underestimating how hard it would be. But if it had to be done, it would be done, if in a way that is a little less personal. I don't doubt your knowledge of the business, so don't take any of this as a personal jab, but I find it hard to believe that any businessman wouldn't take at least some time to capitalize on an idea this big, especially in light of The Avengers.

[Ultimatehero]

No, what I'm saying is - might have misheard - the writer can't just watch Justice League and go "okay, that's what they did, back to the drawing board with limited time." The way these companies work it just can't work like that. It'd be disastrous unless there was truly a wide gap between the films. Otherwise looking at finishing the script during production. Need more to go off of then just seeing JLA after it's completed to have the time needed.

They would make an effort. And as I said since the beginning that effort would mean a change from the current status-quo. As things are currently - it can't work. Make a change within system - it can work.

Saying "they'd all be interested!" is looking at it more from a fan perspective. IF Iron Man and Thor do significantly better in their films after AVENGERS then you're looking at something. However what good would it do De Line if Legacy has JLA? Only Legacy would reap the reward. A contract could be written up designating that they all get equal earnings from the box office, but if one company is working on it more while the others take a back seat? They are likely to get angry that other companies are riding it's coat-tails. Warner Bros is a parent company. Their production companies are like rival siblings. If they don't do better than another company they risk being let go, so it's not how much money WB can earn - but how much they can earn to stay with WB. One company getting the primary finances from JLA, doesn't really benefit the others. And for the others if that's their only blockbuster that year? They'd literally fall apart financially due to it's division of finances. That's why they have a quote of the number of movies they need to make a year even if they think the scripts suck. Yes studios knowingly put out bad movies that they see earning money back.

It'd be the less personal way. It's the easiest and allows each company to work on their own blockbusters alongside it. Possibly the only company that would capitalize is the production company behind JLA unless a deal is drawn up that would make it a good deal for all involved. As said, the production companies are rivals to each other. Good for WB, good for at least one company, iffy for the rest. I should also note the divided pay would be LESS than what one of those companies gets for their yearly blockbuster unless that yearly blockbuster is a flop. So, from a fan stand-point: Yes. From a business one - not really, they wouldn't be earning that much if anything unless a contract is drawn up. That's the thing it's not one company, it's many and for it to be lucrative they all have to see the right amount of profit to put aside time specifically for it outside of browsing documents. Capitalizing would only happen for WB, not these production companies making the films.

Basically "it's capitalizing!" is good in theory, but it really wouldn't work out like that due to current division amongst branches. They'd be earning less than they usually do.

[The Boy Scout]

No, what I'm saying is - might have misheard - the writer can't just watch Justice League and go "okay, that's what they did, back to the drawing board with limited time." The way these companies work it just can't work like that. It'd be disastrous unless there was truly a wide gap between the films. Otherwise looking at finishing the script during production. Need more to go off of then just seeing JLA after it's completed to have the time needed.

Nope. I understood you just fine.

They would make an effort. And as I said since the beginning that effort would mean a change from the current status-quo. As things are currently - it can't work. Make a change within system - it can work.

Well, yeah, that's what I've been saying, dude.

Saying "they'd all be interested!" is looking at it more from a fan perspective.

How so? They would be interested. Avengers is looking to make major money. These guys want to make a lot of money. I'm looking at it from the perspective of someone who can relate to wanting to make money.

However what good would it do De Line if Legacy has JLA? Only Legacy would reap the reward. A contract could be written up designating that they all get equal earnings from the box office, but if one company is working on it more while the others take a back seat? They are likely to get angry that other companies are riding it's coat-tails. Warner Bros is a parent company. Their production companies are like rival siblings. If they don't do better than another company they risk being let go, so it's not how much money WB can earn - but how much they can earn to stay with WB. One company getting the primary finances from JLA, doesn't really benefit the others. And for the others if that's their only blockbuster that year? They'd literally fall apart financially due to it's division of finances. That's why they have a quote of the number of movies they need to make a year even if they think the scripts suck. Yes studios knowingly put out bad movies that they see earning money back.

It'd be the less personal way. It's the easiest and allows each company to work on their own blockbusters alongside it. Possibly the only company that would capitalize is the production company behind JLA unless a deal is drawn up that would make it a good deal for all involved. As said, the production companies are rivals to each other. Good for WB, good for at least one company, iffy for the rest. I should also note the divided pay would be LESS than what one of those companies gets for their yearly blockbuster unless that yearly blockbuster is a flop. So, from a fan stand-point: Yes. From a business one - not really, they wouldn't be earning that much if anything unless a contract is drawn up. That's the thing it's not one company, it's many and for it to be lucrative they all have to see the right amount of profit to put aside time specifically for it outside of browsing documents. Capitalizing would only happen for WB, not these production companies making the films.

Basically "it's capitalizing!" is good in theory, but it really wouldn't work out like that due to current division amongst branches. They'd be earning less than they usually do.

I see where you're getting at. And I concede that the only way I can respond to that is, "If they had to, they'd find a way to make it work." I'll leave the blow-by-blow to someone else who knows a little more about this stuff and the possible ramifications of making JLA than I do.

Good convo. :up:

[Ultimatehero]

That it would make a lot of money for them. All that would benefit is WB and fans. As I think you may have understood from the final paragraphs. So in the end it would make them the same money, or I'd imagine from the way a good contract can be drawn up, the same amount of money as their usual films - just not their blockbuster films. They'd need to appropriate merchandising and DVD sales into the deal to make it lucrative or some may even lose money.

Breaking it down...

Say it makes 600 million worldwide. It's just a random number.

You have four companies with the rights.

600 million broken down equally means they'd each get only 150 million total earnings.

With three companies it's 200 million only each.

Or ONE BILLION (TDK)...

4 companies = 250,000 million
3 companies = 333,333 million

Which is still less than what their average blockbusters bring in. It could be more than one of their other films, but that's if it gets TDK level earnings (which I even think TDKR will get slightly lower than TDK).

Each company makes more than that in their yearly blockbusters. It could be less than some of their usual films too or more depending. But, it basically wouldn't be striking gold unless they hit that one billion worldwide.

[The Guard]

Dude, I don't quote. Let me put that again - just to get through to you - I don't quote. Not I don't know how to quote. Not I can't quote. I don't quote. Simple. Good. I have more important things to do with my life than break down every single thing I'm replying to. I have a life and a career that takes up most of my time.

You don't have a few seconds to quote, but you have time to repeat and repeat your points ad nauseum in large paragraphs?

Fair enough.

It seems like you're a smart guy. So you'd know I wasn't talking about just Flash. I know little about Flash. And as I already stated Flash was just a name to use. Nothing more. Nothing less. Good? Let's move on.

Being smart doesn't mean I assume things. I read in context. I didn't know that you weren't talking about Flash...because you were, in fact, talking about Flash for some time. And more to the point, regardless of the character, I have asked for examples of how a character would likely be developed in their solo film that would affect a Justice League film...so that I can better understand your argument, which you've yet to provide, for Flash, or Aquaman, who you state you understand better.

You don't always need to "write carefully." To make sure the characters and events come off as real, yes. But there is no real tight rope to walk. There is no possible impeding force. If you're writing 'INCEPTION' then yeah you need to be careful. Unless, everything just comes easy to me that I don't see red flags everywhere that I need to watch out for. The character is the character, it lives, breathes, and does what it does naturally - it doesn't have an evil twin or doppelganger to possibly shake things up.

Agree to disagree. I believe that while characters do tend to take on their own personalities, and can surprise you, you do need a bit careful during the writing process in order to get a quality project.

Now if JLA is careful in the way you propose, not mentioning any single thing and really not taking the character to any place arc-wise, then yes that would undoubtably make it easier. Solo films using JLA aspects to me is really far-fetched, also why I said events wouldn't matter - only character would, due to being from different cities whereas MARVEL is more tightly packed together.

I have not once proposed that JLA doesn't take the characters to any place arcwise. I have never said that JLA should have no impact characterwise. I have stated that the type of character development featured in JLA should be in the context of the JLA, not something that would affect individual solo films and the exploration of character or development in those.

And you kind of just proved my point. You said "Solo films using JLA aspects to me is really far fetched". That's my point. Since the types of development would likely be different between solo and JLA films, I really don't think they would cause many issues with each other.

And yes, IF shared universe was in the future you'd expect communication. There really isn't. So I'm not really worried, as an actual writer that could possibly get a hold of Aquaman. I don't see a shared universe happening any time soon. And if they do - yeah, IF they go your way of JLA not really shaping the characters to impact what comes before and after - that could work.

We know there isn't, or at least we can assume there hasn't been, great communication. All anyone has been saying is this:

It's clear Marvel has communicated about their films. If WB wants to do what Marvel is, there will have to be communication.

And again, it’s not neccessarily about having to watch a movie to see what was already done in order to avoid continuity issues. Its about NOT WRITING ANYTHING INTO YOUR SOLO MOVIE THAT WILL POTENTIALLY CONFLICT WITH A JUSTICE LEAGUE PROJECT. Not using elements best served in the capacity of a Justice League movie, for instance, an independent character learning to be more of a team player with the JLA, in a solo film.

[Ultimatehero]

Dude comically you don't notice that YOU are repeating as well.

Actually I did provide the example and say if JLA made him kingly already - that would seem out of place with where he is in the solo film. Pay better attention to what you read. What you showed, however, was there is a way around this by JLA not focusing at all on that, which is possible.

Do characters surprise you? Yes. I just don't find that difficult or confusing or anything of the like. In fact I like it and find it easier when characters surprise you because that means they are alive and well-written. Any time a character isn't living on it's own - that's a bad character, not fleshed out enough. Experienced writers, no offense, know that, and I can see how that could confuse beginning or novice writers. Character's living on their own confused me when I was first starting out, now it's easy. You get used to the spontaneity.

ADDING: I should note what makes this difficult, and why you really need to understand the characters to a point where them having wills of their own doesn't boggle you is because eventually you will have studios telling you they'd like to see certain changes brought to said character. You need to go back and make it seem natural. Basically adding another limb but needing the character to be the same as before despite it being a more technical rather than spontaneous change, it still needs to feel normal. It's easy if the character is already alive and well. And as a writer who has actually worked with legit top film studios, trust me when I say - this is something you will need to get used to in order to better make those adjustments. Writing is the easy part. The hard part is adhering to what a studio wants while still keeping it as you want and making it flow all the same.

I was over exaggerating slightly, by solo JLA arcs wouldn't cause a major impact or dent in the character to impede what comes after. It's just not huge overall changes like in a solo film.

You can assume that posters know, HOWEVER some are still confused, when I first entered members thought that since I had some knowledge on a DC property I'd naturally know about another DC property. To me, that speaks for itself. YOU just seem to know more than the rest. Also this confusion would easily, beyond easily lend to some thinking a JLA film would be seen as a film that would strike gold for everyone involved - when really broken down - it doesn't. This basically just shows some people still think of WB as one company rather than multiple. It would be gold for WB, but far from that for the rest.

And your last paragraph missed everything about what that 'watch movie' thing was back and forth. Someone else stated that and all I stated was why that wouldn't work. And if you can't understand the reasoning of why that wouldn't work - not enough time and working on it at the same time - maybe you don't know as much as I thought you did. It would inevitably lead to finishing the script if things did work like that during production, which happens sometimes but is far from the best scenario.

I mean seriously dude, do you just skim things or have poor reading comprehension? It's pretty obvious I didn't bring up the watch the movie thing. And I'm pretty sure a couple times I said "such as Flash" "just Flash, no particular reason, just a name" and it's like you skipped right over that - are you just skimming or is there something else causing this?

[ElMariachi]

But let's look at what he actually is, an whether we've seen this in film and TV recently.

-He is a good man/boyscout. That is not a new concept. Superman is the most shining example of this, but there have been other characters with these traits on film, TV, etc, for a long time.


You claim this but not have provided any examples. I already pointed out Superman. And it's not like Superman has really been that successful since his heyday in the late 70's/early 80's. The character has taken a backseat to more 'real world' characters like Batman, Spider-Man, the X-Men, and even Iron Man now.

What other t.v. or movie boyscouts can you think of? Tin Tin is the only other one I can think of. While it was successful worldwide, it really wasn't a huge hit in the U.S. for obvious reasons. Luke Skywalker is somewhat of a boyscout and we all know Star Wars was largely sold on Han Solo. There aren't any t.v. characters like this at all and haven't been for a long time.


-He is patriotic propaganda. That is not a new concept either, not is it a particularly difficult one to grasp, even overseas, where it may not be as appreciated, but can certainly be understood. Again, Superman could fall into this category, as could any number of solider, government and police characters seen on film and TV over the years.

What other characters are patriotic propaganda? All movies that feature soldiers and police officers portray them as real world characters with doubts, fears, and flaws. There aren't any war movies that feature characters like Captain America. As a matter of fact, the Captain America movie featured this difference after the 'rah rah' USO scene. Even the John Wayne-era war movies didn't go quite to that level.



Yes, Captain America is a unique superhero. But he's still a superhero, made up of identifiable concepts that people have been exposed to many times, and responded to favorably. Captain America didn't become wildly popular over the years because he wasn't relatable or easy to understand. He became popular because a lot of people like him because he is, and because he is interesting.

Captain America is a niche character to most people before the movie came out. There is a difference between recognizing a character and a character being popular. Batman is a popular character. Captain America was only an identifiable character. The same as Thor, Flash, and the rest of the B-list.



Ok...you just listed a variety of popular characters, some dark, some lighter. I have no idea what your point was in doing that. So...audiences expect a range of darker and lighter characters? Doesn't that bode well for Captain America in general, who ideally treads on both sides? What was your point in listing those names?

The point was that audiences identify with flawed characters. Characters with quirks, dark sides, and things of that nature. It has been that way since the 60's when everything started to change in this country. Characters like Superman and Captain America haven't adapted as well as other superheroes. Oh sure, they've tried to make them more relevant but younger audiences were always more drawn to Batman, Spider-Man, and X-Men. That's what children of the 80's and 90's grew up with. Superman in many ways is still our 'dad's superhero'. Hulk could probally be added to this as well.



Your argument seems to be that WWII is a risky subject...when it's a Captain America Summer tentpole movie. I'm honestly not sure what you're basing that on. Obviously it's not that touchy a subject, because it made a ton of money, being just that.

It's a superhero movie that takes place during WWII. That is a very risky subject for a summer tentpole that requires bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars. Inglorious Bastards wasn't such a risk because it's Tarantino and it's an R-rated movie not aimed at children.

WWII is a very touchy subject around the world. The wounds of that war aren't still fully healed in many countries. Even in nations like the U.K. and U.S., there is a respect factor that goes with WWII. People in many countries (esp. UK and Russia) feel that Americans take all the credit for winning the war and this movie would just be a $150 million boast. They had to make this movie fun for people in all countries and not coming away feeling that it was overly biased.



But the Indiana Jones movies featured Nazis, HELLBOY featured Nazis...

SCHINDLER'S LIST made $321 million worldwide on a $22 million budget

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN made $481 million on a budget of $70 million.

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS made $321 million on a budget of $70 million.

And in some ways, its even more a testament to the idea that people respond to well made/fun WWII films because some of these WERE "R" rated films, which tend to make less money.

THE ROCKETEER made some money even though it wasn't terribly well made.


Indiana Jones and Rocketeer were the templates for Captain America. That's why they hired Joe Johnston. The rest of those movies are R rated dramas. Schindlers List is a Holocaust drama, not a war movie. Like Saving Private Ryan, these movies were huge projects and two of the most iconic movies of the 90's. These three movies were directed by Speilberg & Tarantino. That alone gave them alot of buzz. Outside these movies, most recent WWII movies are bombs or critical failures.


In your opinion he's the most difficult superhero to pull off. In mine, an American propaganda character that is such a boyscout that he has fewer moral gray areas in many versions is infinitely easier to pull off than say, The Punisher, or the X-Men, or Thor or Iron Man or The Hulk. I'm aware of the requirements in adapting Captain America, but they don't make adapting him any more impossible or difficult than adapting any other character.

It would be easier to pull off if this was the 1950's. People today aren't drawn to characters like Captain America. The box office is all the evidence I need. I just don't think you are judging current trends accurately.


You don't think DAREDEVIL was a risk? THE PUNISHER? GHOST RIDER? HELLBOY, BLADE and SPAWN Apparently "much risk" means they didn't put up as much money. It's not quite that simple conceptually, though.


No, I don't think they were that big of risks compared to Captain America. These were all movies released during a better economy and during the superhero boom by large studios. Marvel could not stomach a bomb in the same way as a Fox or WB could. Avengers was completely tied to these two franchises. Captain America and Thor were far bigger swings than any of those movies you listed.

Yes, its unique in that Norse Mythology is not Green Mythology, and that Norse Mythology is less exposed, sure. I'm really not going to get into this nonsensical "That's not the same!" thing you're doing. Mythology is ultimately mythology. There have been adaptions of both. Norse mythology has been onscreen before. The 13th Warrior was pretty good. There have been more than a few movies about vikings, warriors, several Beowulf/Grendel adaptions, and I think that How To Train Your Dragon was Norse-inspired.

Norse mythology has not been onscreen often. What movies have you seen with Thor, Loki, or Odin? Compare this to the Greek gods that are in various movies, t.v. shows, video games, books, etc.

13th Warrior wasn't that bad in my opinion but it was a massive bomb. HTTYD is a kids movie. Beowulf was a great movie but it really didn't do exceptional at the box office given it's huge, Thor-sized budget.

Yes, it is a bizarre concept. But audiences tend to LIKE a lot of the bizarre concepts. They respond to them. People don't go to blockbuster movies to see everyday life. They go to see bizarre or interesting concepts.

That's not really all that true. All 'bizarre concepts' tend to be from already popular books or franchises. It's one thing to introduce it in a smaller movie. Another for a tentpole movie like Thor with so much riding on it's success. If it was this easy, WB would have put out alot more than Batman/Superman/Alan Moore movies.



I don't think it is ridiculous. There's a clear difference in the creative approach taken with certain films. It's kind of been you that's splitting hairs. Trying to boil down everything I say into "but that's different".

There's a very clear creative approach in The DARK KNIGHT that isn't as safe and generic as other films. That's just not arguable. Ditto SUPERMAN RETURNS, X-MEN, and several other recent superhero films.

CAPTAIN AMERICA cannot boast this. It presents fairly obvious morality, little villain depth, little exploration of its core concepts, and is mostly focused on
story and action after the initial third of the film.


There wasn't much depth in any of those movies you listed. The Joker had zero depth. He was a psychopath the entire film without any development. Two Face's arc was too quick and Batman not given as much as as in BB. This was all ignored because the movie was so well written, directed, scored, and acted. Same can be said about X-Men. There wasn't much depth to the characters in any of the X-Men movies with the expection of Magneto and Xavier. Not sure why you bring up Superman Returns. They tried to make that movie more serious and it ended up being the most boring superhero movie probally ever made.


I would respond to the rest of your response but I don't feel like writing anymore. Responding to your posts is like writing an essay. :hehe:

[The Guard]

Dude comically you don't notice that YOU are repeating as well

Of course I realize that I’m repeating myself. But I’m not the one talking about how I don’t have time to “quote” people.

Nor do I randomly repeat what I know about being in the businesss and how complex and troublesome making a JLA film VS solo films is when someone’s post doesn’t even call for it. When I've already said it over, and over, and over, and am not responding to a direct statement that calls for that to be my response.

Actually I did provide the example and say if JLA made him kingly already - that would seem out of place with where he is in the solo film. Pay better attention to what you read. What you showed, however, was there is a way around this by JLA not focusing at all on that, which is possible.

You wrote in your example that he would have become a king in the solo film, in title, but didn’t feel like a king, only in title.

So the JLA concept I mentioned had him dealing with his concerns about being king in a broader sense, as a way to build rapport with his teammates, and open up to them a bit. It allows for the same concerns to be explored, without directly exploring his personal life, but rather in the context of the JLA.

Do characters surprise you? Yes. I just don't find that difficult or confusing or anything of the like. In fact I like it and find it easier when characters surprise you because that means they are alive and well-written. Any time a character isn't living on it's own - that's a bad character, not fleshed out enough. Experienced writers, no offense, know that, and I can see how that could confuse beginning or novice writers. Character's living on their own confused me when I was first starting out, now it's easy. You get used to the spontaneity.

You don’t find it difficult or confusing…except, apparently, when you have to not ruin a JLA franchise with a solo film.

ADDING: I should note what makes this difficult, and why you really need to understand the characters to a point where them having wills of their own doesn't boggle you is because eventually you will have studios telling you they'd like to see certain changes brought to said character. You need to go back and make it seem natural.

Yes, you would need to go back and change it to make it seem natural. Via writing that involves some care. Because writing without using some care tends to, by definition, be sloppy or lazy writing.

I was over exaggerating slightly, by solo JLA arcs wouldn't cause a major impact or dent in the character to impede what comes after. It's just not huge overall changes like in a solo film

So you do, or don’t, think its likely that having characters arcs in a JLA film would affect their development in solo films?

You can assume that posters know, HOWEVER some are still confused, when I first entered members thought that since I had some knowledge on a DC property I'd naturally know about another DC property. To me, that speaks for itself. YOU just seem to know more than the rest.

I just seem to know more than the rest about what?

Also this confusion would easily, beyond easily lend to some thinking a JLA film would be seen as a film that would strike gold for everyone involved - when really broken down - it doesn't. This basically just shows some people still think of WB as one company rather than multiple. It would be gold for WB, but far from that for the rest.

But…it would still potentially be gold for WB. And a good gague as to whether the individual companies you speak of could make solo films, if the characters were popular in a JLA film.

And your last paragraph missed everything about what that 'watch movie' thing was back and forth. Someone else stated that and all I stated was why that wouldn't work. And if you can't understand the reasoning of why that wouldn't work - not enough time and working on it at the same time - maybe you don't know as much as I thought you did. It would inevitably lead to finishing the script if things did work like that during production, which happens sometimes but is far from the best scenario.

I wasn’t making any definitive statements…not sure what you think my position on that was.

I mean seriously dude, do you just skim things or have poor reading comprehension?

There’s no need to be rude. I think I’ve made it pretty clear, via quoting and responding in full, that neither of those is the case.

It's pretty obvious I didn't bring up the watch the movie thing. And I'm pretty sure a couple times I said "such as Flash" "just Flash, no particular reason, just a name" and it's like you skipped right over that - are you just skimming or is there something else causing this?

I never said you brought it up...I was just addressing the statement someone made. And I’m aware that "Flash" was just an example. I have clearly been asking you for examples about the concept of character development between solo and JLA films causing issues, period, and trying to get you to explain your character arc concerns in more depth, with additional examples. The character we used as an example didn’t matter, the concept did. Which I understood. You said Flash. I’m not accusing you of anything except that you said “Flash” as an example. I don’t really care at this point. I was using Flash as a comparison, because you did. You’ll notice that when you decided to use Aquaman, so did I.

[Ultimatehero]

Yes, that's right, you have nothing to randomly repeat in the course of your posts about being in the business, because you aren't in the business. Sorry, just felt like that deserved a 'Tony Stark' type egotistical answer. :oldrazz:

And as I've said that would work. By arc I mean something that really progresses the character. You'd be progressing an element of the character, sure. But nothing that would make a dent. Which, dude, if you read carefully is why I liked your JLA idea because it wouldn't mess things up. It'd be an arc, but not a very substantial one that'd impact what came before and after in the solo films.

Exactly a stand-alone franchise is always easier than being careful about people not stepping on each other's toes. Everyone involved with the MARVEL films have stated so as well. That it's overall a different kind of experience than what they are used to. Writing either a stand-alone script or a franchised blockbuster (I've done both with studio interest) is not at all the same as writing something that is part of a much larger world (which I've also done, outside of studio walls) and you'd be a fool to not acknowledge that you need to leave some room. Everyone involved with such a project has stated as much, so it's not just me. Not having information would without a doubt make it a lot harder though.

Going back to add things in, remove things, etc. does take care. The actual writing process itself to any talented writer should and does come as a second nature thing. Knowing your world takes time, sure. But, once you know your world and set pen to paper - it should come just as easily as breathing. If you're struggling through, that's usually not a good sign. You were, forgive me if I'm wrong, saying the actual writing process is difficult - not the draft process which does require attention.

If the arcs are as you proposed, then it wouldn't be a struggle. It would be somewhat difficult and restraining for those on JLA to not really make any massive changes. But, it is feasible as I have stated before and I'm saying again now. My mind was so wrapped in AQUAMAN and other gigs as to not see how it could work. But, from an outside perspective - you've nailed it. And I could work easily within those parameters.

You know more about the inner-workings than some of these other posters. For example, after hearing I have knowledge regarding 'Wonder Woman' I highly doubt you'd automatically expect me to naturally have the same knowledge on other DC properties. You know more than some other people do. What may be stating the obvious to you is not so, from experience on here, to others.

If you start off with JLA, yes. It would be. If you lead into it - no it wouldn't be. Also, as said, the true measure of the judge for WB and these companies will be how IRON MAN 3 and THOR 2 perform at box office and I am really interested in seeing if AVENGERS elevates those films potential box office receipts. But a JLA film by itself would definitely NOT be seen as gold by all. Just to WB and DC - unless, as said - a combined film makes a significant difference on the earnings for the rest otherwise it would be the same as without it and these smaller companies wouldn't make that much off of it (JLA).

So I got lost in noting who it was regarding? Alright. Need to clarify, which if you even see my earlier post on here - I notate if it's two separate people/posters as to not lead others to that mistake.

I can't and won't bring in any further details on AQUAMAN lol. I just can't let myself do that due to where I am. But, as said, from an outside perspective - you alleviated my fears and are right on how JLA could possibly not have a big impact on the solo film world.

[Tobias]

There wasn't much depth in any of those movies you listed. The Joker had zero depth. He was a psychopath the entire film without any development. Two Face's arc was too quick and Batman not given as much as as in BB. This was all ignored because the movie was so well written, directed, scored, and acted. Same can be said about X-Men. There wasn't much depth to the characters in any of the X-Men movies with the expection of Magneto and Xavier. Not sure why you bring up Superman Returns. They tried to make that movie more serious and it ended up being the most boring superhero movie probally ever made.




I pretty much agree. SR may not be the single most boring superhero film ever but it's among the 2 or 3 such films.

I watched it again last summer after Thor and Cap and in comparion it is a poorly done film. Odd when Richard White was the heroic and sympathetic character in SR and not Superman.

GL had it's problems too.

Comparing WB lack of success in doing superhero films, besides batman, and given that TA is turning into maybe the best-ever superhero film made I think WB needs to focus on producing a decent solo film before they tackle JL. IMO a WB JL is not near ready for primetime yet.

[Mondragon]

Looks like WB, Geoff Johns and DC have finally got their act together, and committed to putting together a Justice League project worthy of the name, and to stand against the Avengers media explosion.
They should be proud! -http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/170385-full-cast-announced-for-robot-chickens-dc-comics-special
Dude! You punk'd or rick rolled us!
he punk roll'd us.





....And finally what you've all been waiting for DC and it's Chief "Creative" Officer
Geoff Johns brings you the JL - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AOI79rLovI&feature=youtu.be

http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/5713/jlrobotch.jpg

Who was that humping the Bat Signal?

Silly Marvel has got nothing on the genius that is DC/WB, who needs over $600,000,000 Boxo, when you can have Joker pee and Two Face not wiping.

[Monstrosity]

It really shouldn't be this hard. Just make a good Superman movie, then Batman, have a crossover and then expand on that.

Problem is they are screwing all the tradition of Superman with this reboot. There is a thousand stories they could tell but no they have to take away the red underwear and give us a Superman who doesn't want to be Superman. I refuse to watch it.

[The Guard]

What's this about Superman not wanting to be Superman?

[HighFivingMF]

....And finally what you've all been waiting for DC and it's Chief "Creative" Officer
Geoff Johns brings you the JL - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AOI79rLovI&feature=youtu.be

http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/5713/jlrobotch.jpg

Who was that humping the Bat Signal?

Silly Marvel has got nothing on the genius that is DC/WB, who needs over $600,000,000 Boxo, when you can have Joker pee and Two Face not wiping.

Yeah. They shouldn't make anything but a Justice League movie! They should stop printing the comics too because the comics aren't a Justice League movie!

[ThePowerCosmic]

Who was that humping the Bat Signal?


The Humping Robot. Pretty notorious on Robot Chicken.

csqrZ0ZfBvY
Mm_j78WEn-U
KSI7Rh_j_18

[UltraHypnotic]

I'm not a frequent commenter, so maybe this has been said before. But the problem I see with DC/WB is that, other than Batman and Superman, no one cares about the rest of their characters. From the late 1930's until now, how many television shows, cartoons, movie serials and movies have Batman and Superman had? In that same amount of time, how many have all the rest had? Look at their direct to dvd animated movies. The most of them have been Batman and Superman. The only time we've seen all of their characters work have been in Super Friends, Super Powers, Justice League, Teen Titans and now Young Justice. All team shows.

Looking at all of the Marvel movies, there is no reason why the WB shouldn't have been able to put together at least a Flash movie by now. His, getting struck by lighting and doused with chemicals origin story, is just a crazy as Peter Parker being bitten by a spider. And character wise, if you can make Steve Rogers work on film, you sure as hell can make Barry Allen work on film. But can you really take seriously Captain Cold, Mirror Master, Heat Wave, Weather Wizard, the Trickster, Pied Piper, the Top, and Captain Boomerang? I don't think the question should be where did DC/WB go wrong? It should be, how can they do it right. And I don't think they even know how to answer that question.

That's why coming out with a Justice League movie is their best bet. Other than their big two, the rest of their characters are stronger together than they are apart. If they can make a kick ass JL movie, then they might be able to spin off of solo movie of one of the characters.

Another thing I think they need to do, and this can be confusing as hell if handled wrong and misused like it was back in the day, is take advantage of the Elseworlds/Multiverse angle. That can be an easy way for them to explain why the Christopher Nolan version of Batman that everyone now knows, isn't involved with the JL. Or even Zack Snyder's Superman if Henry Cavil isn't in it either. If done right, they can build up to an epic Crisis on Infinite Earths movie or movies.

[metaphysician]

The thing is, no one cared about Marvel's characters, either. This didn't stop them from making various hits, including one mega smash. People not knowing your characters is an obstacle, but hardly an insurmountable one, if you know what you are doing.

[Octoberist]

Problem is they are screwing all the tradition of Superman with this reboot. There is a thousand stories they could tell but no they have to take away the red underwear and give us a Superman who doesn't want to be Superman. I refuse to watch it.

Regarding point number two: You mean Superman 2?