All Things Superman: An Open Discussion - Part 8

[DoomsdayApex]

A few people have said that, but Rockstar keeps stirring stuff back up by using the words "Messiah," "Nolan," "Snyder," and "Mess" over and over.

Rockstar can't talk about anything else. He's obsessed with Nolan's malevolent agenda to disrupt innocent WB's plans to launch a Justice League adaptation.

 

[Rockstar]

Link me to yours.

To what?

I've already provided links to statements by Nolan and Snyder regarding their views on JLA and keeping Superman (and Batman) in their own respective worlds.

Gill and Ultimatehero have far more credibility than you'll ever have buddy. So unless you have proof, you're just spreading propaganda.

Obviously, you.

Sure.

But link me to the posts where these supposed "insiders" confirm that Nolan and Snyder's input means nothing in regards to JLA.

I'm curious now.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

To what?

I've already provided links to statements by Nolan and Snyder regarding their views on JLA and keeping Superman (and Batman) in their own respective worlds.

And yet, they're hired film makers, not CEOs, executives and board members. Once again, unless you have groundbreaking evidence that indeed links Nolan's words to the disassembly of all WB's plans for Justice League films, or that Christoper Nolan is now in-charge of all DC properties, you're full of crap and spreading bulls**t.

Sure.

But link me to the posts where these supposed insiders confirm that Nolan and Snyder's input means nothing in regards to JLA.

I'm curious since you claim these "two insiders" mentioned this before to me.

Sure. Do you prefer I bring in half of the 'No Shared Universe...' and 'Where WB/DC went wrong...' threads into this discussion OR would you rather I message Ultimatehero to talk to you here?

 

[Rockstar]

And yet, they're hired film makers, not CEOs, executives and board members. Once again, unless you have groundbreaking evidence that indeed links Nolan's words to the disassembly of all WB's plans for Justice League films, or that Christoper Nolan is now in-charge of all DC properties, you're full of crap and spreading bulls**t.

Difference is, Nolan and Snyder are in a much better place to know what's really going on at Warners than any fanboys playing guessing games on a message board.

Their comments about how Superman (and Batman) will be approached at seperate entities should not be dismissed so easily.

I'd take the word of them anyday over questionable 'insiders' and the opinions of fanboys on a message board.

Sure. Do you prefer I bring in half of the 'No Shared Universe...' and 'Where WB/DC went wrong...' threads into this discussion OR would you rather I message Ultimatehero to talk to you here

Show me the specific posts by these "insiders," since you claim they were addressed to me.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Difference is, Nolan and Snyder are in a much better place to know what's really going on at Warners than any fanboys playing guessing games on a message board.

Their comments about how Superman (and Batman) will be approached at seperate entities should not be dismissed so easily.

So, nothing? I thought so.

Show me the specific posts by these "insiders," since you claim they were addressed to me.

Don't worry, I messaged Ultimatehero.

However, latest post:

As long as the inner-workings of the company continue as they are now. Yes.

There is little to no communication between parties. And this is a key issue about having a shared universe. Just look at any MARVEL film and then AVENGERS and what comes after AVENGERS and you will see the characters progress. The characters have character arcs. This is what would make it hard over at WB with how communication currently is.

A company could have the Green Lantern script, yet know nothing about the Flash script and in fact the company with the Flash script won't show it to the company with the Green Lantern script. This right here is what's creating road blocks in the way straight from the start.

This film would likely be handed to the Vice President who handles the blockbusters his company turns out each year. This VP has to oversee every film, keep track of his own blockbuster including visiting the set for months at a time, which would make it extremely difficult and time restrictive to have meetings with other Vice Presidents about a film "down the line."

Most creative executives, I've never met one who hasn't, really only knows about the film he or she is guiding along and nothing else despite it being in the same company. Now imagine this at a much larger scale.

THIS set-up is why WB originally went with different actors, different universe for JLA.

The events of what happen in each particular film isn't important. What is important is keeping the characters in line with what happened to them before and after and how that shaped them. Otherwise they'll be all over the place character-arc wise. Again - nothing to do with events, just doing the character's arc justice.

In a perfect world? Yes, a shared universe would be easy. But logistically there is just so much going on within the company that it is beyond difficult and a million times harder than what MARVEL did. MARVEL is one company under Disney calling the shots on all their films. DC currently doesn't have that luxury at WB for whatever reason (I think it should have that power). Thus it's numerous branches make it harder for DC than MARVEL.

Basically saying at the current-stand point it would be a logistical nightmare to have a shared universe unless:

1) A DC live action company is formed to handle all the properties.
2) A means of communication and studio restrictive open source data is found within company walls.
3) All the properties are given over to one company, LEGACY would be the most apt for this due to their success rate.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Play nice, children.

 

[Rockstar]

So, nothing? I thought so.

Don't worry, I messaged Ultimatehero.

However, latest post:

So basically a whole lot of nothing.


Nolan and Snyder wanting to keep their franchises separate and have the characters exist in their own worlds isn't even mentioned there.


We have official statements from the director of Man of Steel, and the producer of Man of Steel and the Batman reboot, that confirms no crossovers of their work.


Fans can guess all they want, but at the end of the day... the comments by Nolan and Snyder carry 100x more weight than any guessing, pipedreams or opinions by random fans on a messageboard.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/102090-christopher-nolan-on-batman-and-superman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uEgIONT2vo


It doesn't get more straightforward than this.



Seriously.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

It's literally like talking to a brickwall.

 

[Boy Scout]

Nolan had a problem with there being two Batmans onscreen. Having the Armie Hammer Batman would have been counterproductive to what he was doing with Bale and TDK.

Everyone else is saying his problem was with the vague connection between the franchises. No offense, but I'm inclined to believe everyone else.

Then that would mean Cavill would be playing a completely different version of Superman than the Synder/Nolan version; different suit, different characterization, different everything.

Um...if everything about Cavill was different...wouldn't it be even easier for the audience to realize he's playing a different version of the character?

It would be very convoluted for the general audience.

I think you're underestimating their intelligence.

Case in point: Imagine them doing something similar with Bale and his Batman; suddenly having Bale play a TAS-inspired version in JLA. Imagine if that happened while the BB/TDK/TDKR franchise was still going.

It would be a mess for audiences.

1) That's not a real example.

2) The only people who would be confused by that are the ones who don't have common sense.

Cavill wouldn't realistically go against Nolan and Snyder to do JLA, just as Bale didn't go against Nolan to do JL:M.

What are you talking about? A job is a job. Accepting a job isn't betraying or "going against" anyone; it's providing for yourself. And if Snyder or Nolan can't understand that, that's their problem, not his.

And I suspect if there are no references to MOS in JL, neither Snyder nor Nolan will give a rat's ass what Cavill does.

Why would he go against Snyder/Nolan if MoS proves to be a success, and switch teams to an untested JLA project?

1) Because JL has the potential to make a ****load of money.

2) If JL fails, he still has MOS 2 to fall back on. Either way, for him, it's win-win either way.

 

[Rockstar]

Everyone else is saying his problem was with the vague connection between the franchises. No offense, but I'm inclined to believe everyone else..

Whos everyone?

Um...if everything about Cavill was different...wouldn't it be even easier for the audience to realize he's playing a different version of the character?

I think you're underestimating their intelligence.

1) That's not a real example.

2) The only people who would be confused by that are the ones who don't have common sense.

What are you talking about? A job is a job. Accepting a job isn't betraying or "going against" anyone; it's providing for yourself. And if Snyder or Nolan can't understand that, that's their problem, not his.

And I suspect if there are no references to MOS in JL, neither Snyder nor Nolan will give a rat's ass what Cavill does.
1) Because JL has the potential to make a ****load of money.

2) If JL fails, he still has MOS 2 to fall back on. Either way, for him, it's win-win either way ..

I don't agree with the above poster on the Nolan issue, given the official statements made.

However, there is a lot of merit in Ultimatehero's post on why a JL film would be nearly impossible to do at Warners, as things stand now.


I read through his post and it's all true.

What you are proposing is completely unrealistic.


http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=23072387&postcount=500


There is a reason why they went with different actors and a different universe for JL:M. It would be a logistical nightmare to have Cavill tied with Man of Steel AND Justice League.


See above.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Alright, I was asked to come in here, as your resident Deep_Throat in all regards to Warner Bros.

Alright, Nolan information:

- Nolan was hired, he does not in any way shape or form have power over Warner Bros.
- Nolan, however, does have as much respect as Clint Eastwood. He is one of the few directors with that recognition.
- Nolan is one of the few directors with his own office and bat-cart that he drives around the lot.
- Nolan does NOT own the rights to Batman or Superman.
- Christian Bale's contract was signed with Warner Bros. NOT with Christopher Nolan.
- If Bale's contract expires after TDKR, then he will likely follow what Nolan wants. They are working partners. If his contract continues he is legally obligated to do what Warner Bros. wants instead.
- Nolan does NOT own any aspect of his franchise, he is paid for a job. The franchise belongs solely to Warner Bros. and DC. Meaning events in previous films can be mentioned if there is ever a combined universe (which at this point is doubtful), cartoon, spin-off, sequel as WB sees fit.
- WB can fire Nolan at any given time and there is nothing he can do about it, this has happened time and time again with other notable and well respected directors and producers in the film industry that WB at one point trusted with their DC properties. Nolan is no different.
- All of what I said also applies to Superman.
- As to Snyder, he may be highly looked upon by fans - but he is one of the LEAST respected people within WB. Basically he is the same as any other director. They are trusted, yes. But he has no power or clout once so ever yet in comparison to all the higher ups ranging from producers to the key directors that WB truly trusts (that list is very small, btw). So what he wishes doesn't have any weight behind it. WB may listen to advice from Nolan because they trust him - but if they want something Nolan doesn't want? Well, the very real aspect of the business world is - he'd be fired. Got to know who 'God' is more or less lol. And 'God' is the bosses at WB.

I have no idea what this information is being used for, but I skimmed through and caught some quick blurbs so I think all this information will do.

 

[Rockstar]

I never claimed Nolan "owned the rights to Batman and Superman."

- WB can fire Nolan at any given time and there is nothing he can do about it, this has happened time and time again with other notable and well respected directors and producers in the film industry that WB at one point trusted with their DC properties. Nolan is no different..

This is true.


But at this point, Nolan is one of WB's major assets. He is respected. He turned Batman into a billion dollar franchise.

Obviously his opinion matters, otherwise they wouldn't have asked him to produce the Batman reboot and get that on track.



Things can change. If TDKR does disappointing in the box office, I could see Warners being critical of Nolan and his style (just as they were with Burton after BR).

However, that's a big if. TDKR has all the makings of greatness.

 

[Willi Berg]

Boy, I sure would like to know what the plan is.

I hope Robinov comes out with a quote so that everyone can go, "Yeah, right..."

 

[Ultimatehero]

Alright, so what's the argument about then?

If it's, from scanning through, "Nolan and Snyder have major voices in JLA decisions." Then no, they don't. Snyder has none. They trust Nolan's opinion, but can just as easily ignore it. Basically what Nolan or Snyder want in regards to combining characters, well they don't really have a choice if WB wants to do so. So what they're stating is as the creative guys behind it - they would like it to be their own universes. But, if WB says otherwise they'll either have to agree or be **** canned. And, as a creative guy, you do anything to stay on board because at least that way you can oversee things and not lose some semblance of hold completely. Basically if WB wants 'World's Finest' then WB is going to get 'World's Finest' and they'll probably spin it as Nolan and Snyder becoming interested in doing it just since their names would likely be attached because they most likely wouldn't want to let go of their creations where they have no say.

ALSO although I have said 'JLA' is unlikely. Due to the way Batman & Superman are set up? 'Worlds Finest' actually is the combined universe that has a chance of working, it doesn't have the multiple branches thing that JLA has against it. Nor the split financial earnings not in multiple companies favor. It is the closest to a MARVEL type set-up that WB has to readily and easily create some form of a shared universe. And if Bale is obligated by contract for more than three films, we'll probably see him 'forced' into by law of the contract.

Would Nolan and Snyder be against this? Yes. Would WB care? No. If it's what they want, it's what they want - Nolan and co. can either get on board or abandon ship. And despite all the 'tough talk' of not willing to do it, when it comes down to it they'd probably not want to leave it in somebody else's hands so they'd agree.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Things can change. If TDKR does disappointing in the box office, I could see Warners being critical of Nolan and his style (just as they were with Burton after BR).

However, that's a big if. TDKR has all the makings of greatness.

The Dark Knight Rises is finished and WB is incredibly happy with the finished film. Nobody expects it to disappoint.

 

[mclay18]

Would Nolan and Snyder be against this? Yes. Would WB care? No. If it's what they want, it's what they want - Nolan and co. can either get on board or abandon ship. And despite all the 'tough talk' of not willing to do it, when it comes down to it they'd probably not want to leave it in somebody else's hands so they'd agree.

Thank you for clearing this up, BTW.

And I totally agree with that. And it benefits the WB too, since they can attract the credibility of Nolan's 'participation' in the advertisements.

And it's nice to hear that while Nolan is highly respected at WB, they aren't kissing his feet and obeying he and his wife's every whim either.

 

[Showtime]

So anyway...

 

[mclay18]

A few people have said that, but Rockstar keeps stirring stuff back up by using the words "Messiah," "Nolan," "Snyder," and "Mess" over and over.

And that dread term "DC fanboy," thrown around like a curse word. This is why Marvel forum participants shouldn't venture into DC territory unless they can be courteous and not start DC vs. Marvel flame wars.

I have him on ignore now. Feels much more civil.

 

[Rodrigo90]

I don't believe in the talk that WB would blackmail Nolan into doing something he didn't want to, by threatening to hand over Batman to someone else. He's a guy of principles, so he would most likely walk away from WB forever

Yes, if WB wanted a JL or a WF movie, they have the power to do it. But would they actually have the confidence without Nolan's input? Possibly.

But would they sour their own reputations by basically saying
"We know Chris didn't want the superheroes universe's to be mixed together, but we went ahead anyway. He's not happy, but we want money and FAST!"
Nolan would most likely walk, and WB certainly wouldn't want that.
But right now, in their minds, Nolan is their strongest asset, and they don't have the confidence to be without him.

The solution? BE BRAVE!

 

[Ultimatehero]

It's a business. And it wouldn't be blackmail by handing Batman to someone else. It's done all the time. "Do what we want, or we'll fire you and get someone else." Writers, directors, etc. are thrown off projects all the time due to getting into conflicts with a studio. It's the question of what he'd do when faced with that. Everyone in a creative field knows if they don't comply somebody else could swoop in to do their job. It's part of the glass floor everyone creative is standing on. Comply and aid to the best of his ability or walk. It is something that does come up a lot. And seeing as to how I think he cares about his vision of Batman, to him it would just be protecting it.

For example, I'm a writer. I know I don't have anywhere near a reputation. However. Studios hand me notes on a script and say, "we want this, this, and that." They are basic general notes that give me area to move around in. If I say no, they'd kick me off and bring someone else in. And my script, something I've been working a long time on, would be out of range and unprotected. Therefore, I'd be willing to compromise and work with them so I can secure it's safety and safe harbor. Middle grounds isn't a good place to be, but it is better than the alternative. Sometimes to secure the safety of your 'child' you have to make compromises because there's a real need to protect it. Basically they just know what strings to pull. Some comply to protect, others just walk away or get canned due to non-compliance.

I'm unsure how the heads of WB are. However none of the CEOs at various companies (in and outside of WB) have the reputation for being "easy-going" they got where they are for a reason. Sure there are some easy-going CEOs, or would like to hope so, but I've yet to meet one or hear of one from my own experiences and those of the people I know. It does seem like that element of 'old' Hollywood still exists, but you get used to it. I should probably note the executives and VPs I've run across have been more than easy-going though, so it seems just from experiences and what I've heard to be CEOs which makes me question if it's the same for the various studio heads around Hollywood or better.

Everyone at all levels in Hollywood faces this and yeah, you could call it blackmail. Not quite the definition of it, but it is a real threat though. It's also why in so many interviews everyone says, "yeah, I'm always afraid they'll find somebody else" or "that I'll be replaced one day." It's just part of the reason why being anywhere in the business - especially from a creative standpoint - isn't a stable place to be.

One example of the seediness of Hollywood is you know some of those crappy films Hollywood puts out per year? The executives and vice presidents don't even respect those films and see them as trash. It's just to meet a quota. Nothing more. Nothing less. I can't remember any particular examples, but actors have been forced into participating in films due to an obligation in their contracts with a given studio. The general audience doesn't hear about this. Everyone is on the same page whether the filming experience was brilliant or a nightmare. If a nightmare, people will hardly find out. Hell, I'm still getting used to the notion of putting out films a company thinks is bad just to fulfill a contract but it's done all the time. Actors, no matter how much the casting agency likes them, may even get thrown aside due to sexual preference. That's happened once on a superhero movie for a given superhero that I overhead the casting for. Talking mega-huge level superhero character. Basically - there's a lot of grey involved lol. You get used to it. There are just as many awesome people, scenarios, and stories about people as there are nightmares and you guys never really hear the full story most of the time whether it's good or bad. Basically, from all the Hollywood 'horror stories' even Nolan getting "with us or against us" treatment from the heads of WB if they see gold ahead wouldn't surprise me. Sometimes, and what the creative side has to 'deal' / live with, is it's all about the money for the business people.

One example, since it's what I've heard but I don't have any affiliation so I feel safe sharing is, you know Ben Stiller? That guy has one of the worst reputations in Hollywood. In interviews he seems like a good guy, people seem to say great stuff about him, he comes off great. However, behind the scenes? Really a nightmare to deal with and has had conflicts with those he's worked with. Even RDJ, on the set of 'Tropic Thunder,' stood up to him for the crew and everyone basically applauded him for it; so there's one example of a really awesome and down-to-earth guy, RDJ isn't just a great actor but he has an awesome reputation around Hollywood as well. So if there is a problem - that stuff never gets printed about or said in interviews for GA.

 

[mclay18]

I should probably note the executives and VPs I've run across have been more than easy-going though, so it seems just from experiences and what I've heard to be CEOs which makes me question if it's the same for the various studio heads around Hollywood or better.

Maybe it's just the producers that have this old-Hollywood mentality, not the CEOs and VPs of the respective studios (since they are the go-between for the director and studio). Most of the behind-the-scenes talents I've heard unflattering things about are mainly the producers -- like Jerry Bruckheimer, Jon Peters, and especially Joel Silver.

I'm glad Bruckheimer's off mooching off Disney and not getting his clammy hands over DC properties. I'd hate to see a Lone Ranger fiasco with a wildly over-budget film -- and he was reportedly furious with having to forego his big upfront salary and wait for the studio to make its money back on the film before his agreed-upon payout.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Yeah, "producers" as more commonly known. Should have clarified, the places I've been the producers were the CEO of their own companies. VPs have always been cool or from my experience. I've yet to get close to the CEO of a studio, just - as said - those producers who manage their own companies under the studio. It goes VP, President, CEO (Producer) or I might be mixed up with business terms and there's a different title for who's above the President. Titles are the same, just company rather than studio.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

We have official statements from the director of Man of Steel, and the producer of Man of Steel and the Batman reboot, that confirms no crossovers of their work.

Fans can guess all they want, but at the end of the day... the comments by Nolan and Snyder carry 100x more weight than any guessing, pipedreams or opinions by random fans on a messageboard.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/102090-christopher-nolan-on-batman-and-superman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uEgIONT2vo

It doesn't get more straightforward than this.

Seriously.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm with you on this.

I'm just not joining in this debate because it's incredibly boring.

Seriously, anyone wanna talk about Superman in here?

I mean, we have threads about a JL movie, can't you people have your 'insider' info discussions there?

 

[BigThor]

If it makes you feel any better, I'm with you on this.

I'm just not joining in this debate because it's incredibly boring.

Seriously, anyone wanna talk about Superman in here?

I mean, we have threads about a JL movie, can't you people have your 'insider' info discussions there?

Agreed

 

[Rust]

If only there were more to talk about. Speculations have run out. Or become really boring.