Justice League Movie: Blogged and Memo to WB

[Kevin Smith]

Originally Posted by Dark Knight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

heh. To each his own.

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

Martian Manhunter- Dennis Haysbert all the way!

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

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

[Kevin Smith]

Originally Posted by Dark Knight

Kevin, (if this is the real Kevin Smith)

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

Your due Kevin....

LOL.

[Kevin Smith]

Originally Posted by ClarkLuther55

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My thoughts exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Right on, sadly.

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

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

Thanks for the post.

[Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by jmc

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

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

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

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

Get it?

[Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Kevin Smith

LOL.

Seriously, your are due brotha!

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

Just make sure you use Oliver with the hood! LOL

[Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Kevin Smith

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



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



heh. To each his own.




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

Viggo Mortensen then! LOL

[Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Kevin Smith

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

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

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by ClarkLuther55

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

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

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

Originally Posted by ClarkLuther55

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

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

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

[ClarkLuther55]

Originally Posted by dnno1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TheVileOne]

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

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

[GreenKToo]

Originally Posted by Dark Knight

Viggo Mortensen then! LOL

Co-sign. I have been saying he needs to be Aquaman for like forever.

[The Major]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

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

Why do they dislike catering to the fans?

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by ClarkLuther55

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

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

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

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

[The Major]

Originally Posted by dnno1

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

Okay.

[ZIPBAGS]

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

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

[Webhead2006]

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

[Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

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

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

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

They can't help but listen....

[ClarkLuther55]

Originally Posted by dnno1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's quite a weak "rebuttal."

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

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

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

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

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

2008's The Incredible Hulk was under-advertised.

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

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

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

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

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

[ClarkLuther55]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

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

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

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

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

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

[Webhead2006]

that is probably true clarkluthor.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by ClarkLuther55

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by ClarkLuther55

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

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

Originally Posted by ClarkLuther55

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

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

Originally Posted by ClarkLuther55

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

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

Originally Posted by ClarkLuther55

That's quite a weak "rebuttal."

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

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

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

Originally Posted by ClarkLuther55

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

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

2008's The Incredible Hulk was under-advertised.

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

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

Originally Posted by ClarkLuther55

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

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

[The Major]

Originally Posted by dnno1

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

Thanks to the movie.

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

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

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

Only after the movie.

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[protocida]

Zach Snyder, please!

[GL1]

AWESOME POST, Kevin Smith... my comments.

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

RESPECT THE SOURCE
- Aaaaamen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GET PEOPLE WHO GIVE A DAMN
- Please, yes.

THEY HAVE TO LOOK LIKE THE JLA
- Yes please.

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

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

NOT ANOTHER CARTOON
- So right.

AN AMERICAN NAME
- Awesome compromise.

DON'T LISTEN TO THE HATERS
- You right.


My Own thoughts, even though you covered everyting:

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

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

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