Armie Hammer speaks about Justice League

[Docker2.0]

I think we missed out on something that would have at least been interesting, and probably entertaining and lasting. Though I'm sure we'll eventually see a JUSTICE LEAGUE movie, and it will probably be more satisfying than the one that was in development. Still, hindsight is 20/20.

As for Batman the schizo. This is one major issue I have with fanboys. They hear a word or phrase and they latch onto it and try to make it the issue, and don't even think about the context.

So someone said "paranoid schizophrenic". So what? That's became a buzzword for "crazy" in our day and age. It seems fairly obvious they weren't going to make Batman into an actual paranoid schizophrenic. But him being paranoid and having mental issues...even some trace elements of schizophrenia, is an absolutely legitimate take on the character, especially if he SEEMS that way to other characters. They were teaching him how to think like the character, to get his brain firing on some weird cylinders, not how to act like he was having hallucinations, etc. And they were evidently presenting a deeper Batman characterization than we've usually seen (for the most part). If you can't like a Psycho Batman then I'm not even sure how you can like the character itself. Because let's face it, Psycho Batman is usually just people in society looking at Normal Batman differently. And there's absolutely nothing suggesting that Batman was only going to be a psycho in this film. Again, the people around him are supposed to think he's losing it. That's half the point of his role in the OMAC storyline, is it not?

People that didn't get Jay Baruchel as the villain didn't understand what the casting people were doing. I hated it at first...and came to think it was actually rather clever. Baruchel was cast to hide the fact that he was the main villain from the general public, who would likely have had no clue this typecast geek was a duplicitous telepath with some fairly evil power issues. Think about it. Maxwell Lord, while not uber powerful, usually, doesn't look like a pushover in the comics. He's someone that, on film, if we're honest, we'd expect to be a "he's a secret villain" type the second you saw him. Baruchel does not look like that. He looks like he couldn't harm a fly. Not faithful, but the concept seems pretty simple. The man's a telepath, and the centerpiece of the film's climax would probably have been Superman turning evil at Lord's direction and some members of the league having to step in to stop things. Which would have been a shock to the average audience member if the script was decent.

Also, did anyone see Megan Gale's screentest? Yes, she said she was taking some acting lessons. Maybe to learn how to act like an AMAZON SUPERHERO/AMBASSADOR? It's not the easiest role out there, and even good actors can benefit from acting lessons. Lots of actors have dialogue and acting coaches at times, and no one *****es about them. There were probably other talented, attractive Australian actors out there. Why would they choose the one that couldn't act?

JUSTICE LEAGUE was going to be a massive movie. When it eventually gets made, it's going to be a massive movie. Choosing an actress for a tax break is a legitimate move.

The major question mark I had was DJ Cotrona. I just never saw him as Superman. But obviously, out of the likely hundreds of young male actors who would like to be Superman, someone thought he could do the job.

Even though this was a young cast, since we've heard Barry Allen's death and Wally West was involved, I don't think this movie was just going to be about young superheroes. It was probably going to be about "Gods". Ageless, perfect heroes who could continue a franchise, if it had been successful.

Great freakin post! Oh! And Batman is a paranoid schizo! The way Hammer makes it sound like this movie would be gold and I do believe he was right. But honestly, my problem with the movie was the casting. How can Batman be 21 but yet master every skill imaginable? Plus isn't Hammer like 6'6? Cotrona is like 5'9 so it would have been crazy trying to use angles to make them see eye to eye.

 

[El Payaso]

I'm glad this is not happening. I never thought putting 20 superheroes in one movie was anything of a good idea.

 

[TheVileOne]

I don't really care about the screentest either. I'm simply pointing out that, per Miller, there was one.

I don't believe it was fake! I'm simply not convinced that because she apparently KILLED in the audition means she would've translated onscreen as a great performer for Wonder Woman.

 

[The Guard]

I don't believe it was fake! I'm simply not convinced that because she apparently KILLED in the audition means she would've translated onscreen as a great performer for Wonder Woman.

Well, nothing's ever set in stone. But wouldn't a great screentest give you some hope?

Great freakin post! Oh! And Batman is a paranoid schizo! The way Hammer makes it sound like this movie would be gold and I do believe he was right. But honestly, my problem with the movie was the casting. How can Batman be 21 but yet master every skill imaginable? Plus isn't Hammer like 6'6? Cotrona is like 5'9 so it would have been crazy trying to use angles to make them see eye to eye.

There's really nothing that says he has to master every skill by the time he's that old. Bale's Batman hadn't. Heck, how can Batman be 25 but master every skill imaginable like in YEAR ONE?

I don't think he was going to be 21 in the movie. Hammer carries himself in a very mature manner, and I think Batman probably would have been late twenties, or early thirties.

Hollywood has all kinds of tricks to Cruise up Cotrona as Superman. I've just never seen why they thought Cotrona looked like Superman. I've started watching video clips from stuff he's in though, and darned if I can't almost see it.

 

[TheVileOne]

Well, nothing's ever set in stone. But wouldn't a great screentest give you some hope?

WHAT GREAT SCREENTEST?! A screentest we haven't seen. Anyway whatever. Seriously Guard this is a dead project. Its no longer necessary to homer a dead project that is dead. Everyone in this town speaks BS so much I'm honestly numb to it. When I hear Tim Story said Alba had the best screentest for Invisible Woman am I supposed to believe that and get hope from that? Because I don't.

If Gale is truly that good where is the Wonder Woman movie starring Gale? Where is Gale in ANYTHING of note?

I don't think he was going to be 21 in the movie. Hammer carries himself in a very mature manner, and I think Batman probably would have been late twenties, or early thirties.

This movie isn't in production. Hammer is not playing Batman. So what are you talking about?

 

[ClarkLuther55]

So he said a shrink told him "paranoid schizophrenic".

Maybe someone out there is a shrink who doesnt know the difference between shizophrenia and other issues, who was a Hollywood Psychiatrist.

If you're trying to defend this ludicrous "schizophrenic" characterization of Batman, you're not doing a very good job.

So some supposed "psychiatrist" out there is so incompetent in his own field that he doesn't even know the basic symptoms of a well-known illness like schizophrenia? The involvement of this incompetent is then supposed to raise my confidence in the movie project?

No one's ever heard the word "Schizo" or "paranoid schizophrenia" to describe a mental issue that isn't actually schizophrenic?

Really?

I have. It's similar to the way people misuse the term Multiple Personality Disorder.

1.That is a completely INCORRECT application of the term. I might give it a pass if some layperson made that mistake, but a supposed psychiatrist? No.

2. Batman doesn't have multiple personalities either.

Yeah...I...am not advocating for a full blown schizophrenic Batman. Hence the use of the phrase "trace elements".

Trace elements mean "a very small amount".

And I've already explained what I mean by trace elements of schizophrenia. I thought it was pretty clear, actually.

And which "elements" of schizophrenia do you think they're supposed to cherry pick? The disorganized thinking and inability to focus? The psychotic hallucinations? The agitated body movements? NONE of that is Batman.

Those around him, per this story, are supposed to feel like he's losing it a bit.

And that's a crappy portrayal of the characters, which wasn't used in the animated series, Nolan's movies, or many comics themselves.

Batman is the smartest guy in the room, and a leader. He's a leader because he's so obsessed and driven, and wants everything done right. The other heroes follow him, and trust in his decisions. Because he's one of the World's Finest superheroes. They wouldn't trust him if they thought he was "losing it."

Never said I wanted Batman to just be "crazy". I would suggest that yes, it is pretty deep, becuase the Batman we usually see is the dark, troubled hero who has to deal with the usual physical and psychological roadblocks a superhero has, and wins the day. Crazy Batman, simply by virtue of adding Crazy to what Batman already is, and creating those explorations and struggles in addition to what's already there, is in fact a deeper character than regular Batman who has to deal with even more issues than he usually does.

No, it's ridiculous and shallow. Real Batman has issues, those issues are acknowledged, but the story is balanced and nuanced enough not to go over the top. Real Batman has flaws and occasionally rubs people the wrong way. But those flaws also stem from the very things that make him great. Real Batman tries to come across as cold and terrifying, but shows genuine compassion for people. That's much deeper than "he's crazy."

I think the idea of a Batman who is uber capable, stoic and driven, but who starts to struggle to function because of who he is and what he goes through is actually pretty fantastic.

Batman does not "struggle to function." Being extremely functional and accomplished is one of his defining traits. Batman is always fighting for the mission; he's not some crazy psycho with problems that prevent him from even doing that mission.

And if they're bringing in psychologist to teach him how to think more in depth about a character? Absolutely that's indicative of a deeper portrayal than what we've seen for the most part in the past.

Is this psychiatrist a fan who has actually observed Batman in previous stories? Is this psychiatrist even competent in his own supposed profession, if he doesn't even know what actual schizophrenia is?

No, there was no psycho Batman in the cartoons. While adults are certainly kept in mind during their creation, those are more or less kids shows. There's not much room for a psycho Batman, or a Batman with much psychosis, or even all that much in terms of psychological exploration of the character and his world, really.

Give me a break. The Timmverse is better than many of the actual comics. And Batman's not a psycho in many comics or the Nolan movies either.

I mean the OMAC storyline, which is one of the storylines they were adapting for this movie.

What does "yeah, not quite the same thing as a paranoid schizophrenic" even mean in context?

I never said Batman has been depicted as a paranoid schizophrenic. Nor did I say that Batman being a paranoid schizophrenic was part of that storyline in question.

I said that in the story that was being adapted, the rest of the leaguers are supposed to think Batman is losing it a bit. Going off his rocker. Going too far. Because he did, and he was.

Because of a PREVIOUS story that shook up the DC Universe including Batman.

Well, no. Of course a normal looking adult man would not generally arouse suspicion that he is secretly a villain.

But any faithful rendition of Maxwell Lord would.

You're trying to tell me, that in the mid 2000s, that a rich, narcissistic, crafty, pseudo immoral shyster corporate type with a sarcastic edge, who clearly isn't the hero, wouldn't be suspected of being a secret villain if there was even a hint there was one?

So...your solution is to completely piss on the character by casting some geeky manboy?

You know how you mislead the audience despite the character being a narcissistic businessman? Don't make him do something outright villainous. Hell, let him help the heroes at some point. Let him run from other villains supposedly out to kill him. Make him the butt of some jokes. Make him too funny to be thought of as evil. There are so many ways to do it without some ridiculous and degrading casting like getting Jay freaking Baruchel to play your big bad.

Is that no one here has a clue how she would be as Wonder Woman. There's simply no evidence as to whether she would be good or bad in the role.

Yes there is. No real acting experience before or even AFTER this Justice League project. The fact that she was taking acting lessons during production.

Do you think that, on a project of this scale, with so much at stake, in a country with fantastic actresses, he just went to one that was hot that could help with the tax break, apparently saw that she couldn't act, and didn't bother to go to another who was hot, and could help with the tax break, and see if that one could act?

This is a guy who thought Jay Baruchel could play a big bad. I'm not giving him ANY benefit of the doubt.

And a giant corporation like Warner Brothers...which had probably a couple hundred million that was going to be sunk into this...was just...ok with that?

WB made Halley Berry's CINO. They were going to make a "hilarious" Jack Black Green Lantern movie...They eventually weren't even OK with this, which is why this project is dead.

Now then. Miller himself said she had a screentest.

The Aussie Oscar-winner said the glamazon “blitzed her opposition” when she read for the part of Wonder Woman in the sci-fi production.

“She got the job because she blitzed her screen test. I mean, I had no idea she was so good,” Miller said.

He wanted her for mysterious reasons BEFORE any screen test. Ever hear of confirmation bias? And this paltry little sentence means nothing to me. Other directors have talked about how awesome their superhero movies and actors were supposed to be, only for those movies and actors to suck.

Speaking of which, I love this quote from her when she was interviewed about it.

"I still can't believe it," she said. "I have been infatuated with Wonder Woman since I was a teenager."

One doesn't usually become infatuated with something since one was a teenager without knowing a little something about it, does one?

This trite little quote means exactly nothing. I've been a Batman fan since I was a kid. Could I play Batman?

 

[The Batman]

If you're trying to defend this ludicrous "schizophrenic" characterization of Batman, you're not doing a very good job.

So some supposed "psychiatrist" out there is so incompetent in his own field that he doesn't even know the basic symptoms of a well-known illness like schizophrenia? The involvement of this incompetent is then supposed to raise my confidence in the movie project?



1.That is a completely INCORRECT application of the term. I might give it a pass if some layperson made that mistake, but a supposed psychiatrist? No.

2. Batman doesn't have multiple personalities either.



And which "elements" of schizophrenia do you think they're supposed to cherry pick? The disorganized thinking and inability to focus? The psychotic hallucinations? The agitated body movements? NONE of that is Batman.



And that's a crappy portrayal of the characters, which wasn't used in the animated series, Nolan's movies, or many comics themselves.

Batman is the smartest guy in the room, and a leader. He's a leader because he's so obsessed and driven, and wants everything done right. The other heroes follow him, and trust in his decisions. Because he's one of the World's Finest superheroes. They wouldn't trust him if they thought he was "losing it."



No, it's ridiculous and shallow. Real Batman has issues, those issues are acknowledged, but the story is balanced and nuanced enough not to go over the top. Real Batman has flaws and occasionally rubs people the wrong way. But those flaws also stem from the very things that make him great. Real Batman tries to come across as cold and terrifying, but shows genuine compassion for people. That's much deeper than "he's crazy."



Batman does not "struggle to function." Being extremely functional and accomplished is one of his defining traits. Batman is always fighting for the mission; he's not some crazy psycho with problems that prevent him from even doing that mission.



Is this psychiatrist a fan who has actually observed Batman in previous stories? Is this psychiatrist even competent in his own supposed profession, if he doesn't even know what actual schizophrenia is?



Give me a break. The Timmverse is better than many of the actual comics. And Batman's not a psycho in many comics or the Nolan movies either.



Because of a PREVIOUS story that shook up the DC Universe including Batman.

This. There's a lot of reaching going on to defend something that ended up being cancelled anyway. He used bad terminology, simple as that, and it speaks volumes on how much people working on that project dont get it, IMO. No wonder Nolan wanted this project canned.

And the psychiatrists who talked about Batman in the "Batman Unmasked" special get Batman ALOT more than these JL guys did.

 

[The Guard]

WHAT GREAT SCREENTEST?! A screentest we haven't seen. Anyway whatever. Seriously Guard this is a dead project. Its no longer necessary to homer a dead project that is dead. Everyone in this town speaks BS so much I'm honestly numb to it. When I hear Tim Story said Alba had the best screentest for Invisible Woman am I supposed to believe that and get hope from that? Because I don't.

If Gale is truly that good where is the Wonder Woman movie starring Gale? Where is Gale in ANYTHING of note?

Homering?

Is that like if I was to go "Mmm...unproduced Justice League movie"

So maybe it's BS.

I didn't say "didn't the great screentest give you some hope?"

I said "Wouldn't a great screentest give you some hope?"

If Gale is truly that good where is the Wonder Woman movie starring Gale? Where is Gale in ANYTHING of note?

Well, she's known for being a model, and she's Austrailian, so it's going to probably take her a couple of years to be in anything of note if that's what she in fact wants to pursue.

This movie isn't in production. Hammer is not playing Batman. So what are you talking about?

What do you mean what am I talking about?

I am speculating on what might have been.

If you're trying to defend this ludicrous "schizophrenic" characterization of Batman, you're not doing a very good job.

So some supposed "psychiatrist" out there is so incompetent in his own field that he doesn't even know the basic symptoms of a well-known illness like schizophrenia? The involvement of this incompetent is then supposed to raise my confidence in the movie project?

This is, of course, assuming that they actually told Armie "paranoid schizophrenic".

I'm not trying to defend anything. I'm just thinking out loud.

And I'm saying I think a Batman with trace elements of schizophrenia as a character exploration could be interesting.

1.That is a completely INCORRECT application of the term. I might give it a pass if some layperson made that mistake, but a supposed psychiatrist? No.

Fair enough.

2. Batman doesn't have multiple personalities either.

I never said he did.

I'm talking about the fact that I've heard people use "schizo" the wrong way in conversaiton, much the same as I've heard "multiple personality disorder" used in the wrong way.

And which "elements" of schizophrenia do you think they're supposed to cherry pick? The disorganized thinking and inability to focus? The psychotic hallucinations? The agitated body movements? NONE of that is Batman.

Your Batman, as near as I can tell, is the safest and most straightforward and cartoonishly simple type you can find. While do I find that Batman entertaining, I tend to find a Batman with more issues and complexities to be more entertaining and satisfying.

And which "elements" of schizophrenia do you think they're supposed to cherry pick? The disorganized thinking and inability to focus? The psychotic hallucinations? The agitated body movements? NONE of that is Batman.

It's interesting that you mention only the ones that wouldn't really apply to an interesting or complex portryal of Batman (except for halluciations, which I will get to).

Frankly, I think it would be interesting if Batman, at some point, developed some issues that made it harder than usual for him to function in his mission as a result of who he's been during his crusade, and the impact of that on him as a person. Hallucinations and some type of social interaction impairment would be a start. He could also deal with some depression, or even anxiety issues, and some paranoia. I don't think, other than hallucinations (which he has had before) that all these are too far outside who Batman is anyway. Again, people who have gone through much less than Batman have can develop these types of issues.

And that's a crappy portrayal of the characters, which wasn't used in the animated series, Nolan's movies, or many comics themselves.

I guess "crappy" comes down to opinion. As for the rest of that, what's your point?

Are the animated series episodes, Nolan's movies, and your incredibly vauge "many" comics the be-all, end-all of what Batman can and should be?

Batman is the smartest guy in the room, and a leader. He's a leader because he's so obsessed and driven, and wants everything done right. The other heroes follow him, and trust in his decisions. Because he's one of the World's Finest superheroes. They wouldn't trust him if they thought he was "losing it."

A leader can't have some mental issues?

Read some JLA comics from oh, 1988 on. Several of the JLA members tend to think Batman is a bit scary, are weirded out by him, and are often concerned for him. And yet they still trust him. And them losing their trust in him, again, is half the point of the OMAC and TOWER OF BABEL storylines that were adapted for JUSTICE LEAGUE: MORTAL.

No, it's ridiculous and shallow.

I'm not understanding how exploring the complexities of the concept of mental illness in a character who dresses up like a Bat and battles madmen, and represses his anger, pain, and engages in unhealthy social and interpersonal interactions while dealing with a duality of being, is "ridiculous" or "shallow". I'm not saying he should just be labeled "crazy" with no further analysis or character exploration and development.

Real Batman has issues, those issues are acknowledged, but the story is balanced and nuanced enough not to go over the top. Real Batman has flaws and occasionally rubs people the wrong way. But those flaws also stem from the very things that make him great. Real Batman tries to come across as cold and terrifying, but shows genuine compassion for people. That's much deeper than "he's crazy."

So...exploring mental illness is "over the top"?

Again, I never said that he's crazy.

And the exploration of concepts if he was seen as crazy wouldn't be limited to someone saying "Damn. He's crazy".

Batman does not "struggle to function." Being extremely functional and accomplished is one of his defining traits. Batman is always fighting for the mission; he's not some crazy psycho with problems that prevent him from even doing that mission.

Well maybe he should sometimes. Being Bruce Wayne and Batman can't be easy, and I think that there's less of a sacrifice element to the character if it is.

I never said I wanted him portrayed as a psycho with problems that prevent him from doing that mission entirely.

Is this psychiatrist a fan who has actually observed Batman in previous stories? Is this psychiatrist even competent in his own supposed profession, if he doesn't even know what actual schizophrenia is?

How the hell should I know? The mere fact that they even bothered to bring in people to make the actors think more deeply about the character's mental aspects tells me that this was probably going to be a deeper take on the character than we have usually seen. Certain deeper than the average cartoon he's featured in. While some of them did explore psychological elements, "many" of them did not.

I can't prove it would have been deeper, anymore than you can prove that Armie Hammer actually was told Batman would be a paranoid schizophrenic, or that Batman was going to be in JL: MORTAL.

Give me a break. The Timmverse is better than many of the actual comics.

The Timmverse is largely based on comics that have existed. It is good largely because some of the comics its based on have been good.

And Batman's not a psycho in many comics or the Nolan movies either.

That's not going to convince me that exploring this new idea is a bad idea. Sorry.

Because of a PREVIOUS story that shook up the DC Universe including Batman

So? Obviously they wanted to use the idea of Batman becoming paranoid and keeping tabs on his teammates. Who cares if that originated in a different story? Did you ***** when Scarecrow was riding a horse but not in a story based on THE LONG HALLOWEEN?

So...your solution is to completely piss on the character by casting some geeky manboy?

No...

But I didn't make the casting decision of Jay Baruchel, did I?

You know how you mislead the audience despite the character being a narcissistic businessman? Don't make him do something outright villainous. Hell, let him help the heroes at some point. Let him run from other villains supposedly out to kill him. Make him the butt of some jokes. Make him too funny to be thought of as evil. There are so many ways to do it without some ridiculous and degrading casting like getting Jay freaking Baruchel to play your big bad.

Here's the problem with that approach...

A, that sounds cheesy.

B, I'm fairly certain they'd still suspect the handsome corporate businessman of being a villain if he had any of his character traits intact.

And if he' was not a rich, narcissistic, crafty, pseudo immoral shyster corporate type with a sarcastic edge...then he's not really Max Lord, and who CARES if they cast Baruchel? THAT would be pissing on the character. Casting Jay Baruchel just pissed on the character's appearance.

Yes there is. No real acting experience before or even AFTER this Justice League project. The fact that she was taking acting lessons during production.

No. There is not any evidence to prove whether she would be good or bad. By your own admission, she had no real acting experience for you to base your assessment of her acting prowess on before or after this project

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68lSl94ubG0

I don't think she's awful. Granted, she's playing a model in this.

This is a guy who thought Jay Baruchel could play a big bad. I'm not giving him ANY benefit of the doubt.

And you know that Jay couldn't play the main villain because...

WB made Halley Berry's CINO. They were going to make a "hilarious" Jack Black Green Lantern movie...They eventually weren't even OK with this, which is why this project is dead.

The Jack Black project (which is actually pretty funny, just so wrong for GL), never got off the ground. CATWOMAN was horrible, but that was a movie WB made to avoid losing even more money that they'd sunk into the project since 1992.

And WB had clearly changed their approach to comic book films after making CATWOMAN and abandoning that version of GREEN LANTERN. They'd made BATMAN BEGINS, SUPERMAN RETURNS, THE DARK KNIGHT, V FOR VENDETTA and CONSTANTINE.

They weren't ok with moving forward on JUSTICE LEAGUE: MORTAL, because they couldn't get the Australian tax breaks, couldn't afford to risk making the movie, and didn't want to risk it.

He wanted her for mysterious reasons BEFORE any screen test. Ever hear of confirmation bias? And this paltry little sentence means nothing to me. Other directors have talked about how awesome their superhero movies and actors were supposed to
be, only for those movies and actors to suck.

I don't think the reasons are all that mysterious.

She looks quite a bit like Wonder Woman.

Sure, there's bias out there. My point was only that there was an actual screentest, per George Miller

This trite little quote means exactly nothing. I've been a Batman fan since I was a kid. Could I play Batman?

A cartoon Batman, maybe.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

Well, she's known for being a model, and she's Austrailian, so it's going to probably take her a couple of years to be in anything of note if that's what she in fact wants to pursue.

Megan Gale was cast as Wonder Woman in a huge American blockbuster. She already got her foot in the door. If she were any good, don't you think she would have found something? A supporting role in some romantic comedy. A few guest appearances on soaps. Something, anything to fill out her nearly nonexistent acting resume.

This is, of course, assuming that they actually told Armie "paranoid schizophrenic".

So either Armie got a horribly misapplied term from his incompetent "Hollywood shrink" (which you made up in a lousy attempt to defend this dead project), or he himself doesn't know what he's talking about. Again, that's supposed to raise my confidence?

Your Batman, as near as I can tell, is the safest and most straightforward and cartoonishly simple type you can find.

If it is then call Batman Begins that. Call Nolan "safe" and "straightforward" and "cartoonishly simple." Being a flawed person with serious emotional issues, but retaining control of yourself and genuinely caring about others is "cartoonish" now? Yeah, right.

It's interesting that you mention only the ones that wouldn't really apply to an interesting or complex portryal of Batman (except for halluciations, which I will get to).

I was the one who even linked to that medical website that listed all the major symptoms of schizophrenia. Inability to focus and psychotic hallucinations are what schizophrenia involves. If you don't like that, then tell me, what would you cherry pick then?

Frankly, I think it would be interesting if Batman, at some point, developed some issues that made it harder than usual for him to function in his mission as a result of who he's been during his crusade, and the impact of that on him as a person. Hallucinations and some type of social interaction impairment would be a start. He could also deal with some depression, or even anxiety issues, and some paranoia.

Hallucinations are big freaking deal. It means that the person no longer has a grip on what is real or not. A person with hallucinations is horribly dysfunctional, to the point where he is the opposite of Batman. Social impairment is also ridiculous, because Batman is able to pass himself off as a dreamy billionaire playboy. He rubs people wrong in his Batman identity because he can drop the manners and be as blunt, direct, and mission-oriented as he wants. And depression? Batman broods, but he does not act "depressed." This is all horrible and completely at odds with who Batman is and what he's supposed to represent.

Are the animated series episodes, Nolan's movies, and your incredibly vauge "many" comics the be-all, end-all of what Batman can and should be?

They are VERY prominent recent portrayals of the character, that reinforce Batman's basics and are very popular. They show a Batman who is flawed, realistic, but likable and admirable.

Read some JLA comics from oh, 1988 on. Several of the JLA members tend to think Batman is a bit scary, are weirded out by him, and are often concerned for him. And yet they still trust him.

There is a huge difference between being weirded out by someone, and knowing he's crazy because he legitimately has psychotic symptoms as you suggested that he should. Hallucinations, depression, and anxiety issues? Kick his butt out of the league then.

And them losing their trust in him, again, is half the point of the OMAC and TOWER OF BABEL storylines that were adapted for JUSTICE LEAGUE: MORTAL.

Both of which were stories set in the comics universe, with the league well-established by then. One of which (OMAC) dealt with the fallout of the universe-shaking Identity Crisis, which had Batman being betrayed and mindwiped by his own allies. Those are important features which the movie would very likely not have.

Again, I never said that he's crazy.

If someone hallucinates, then yes, he is crazy.

No...

But I didn't make the casting decision of Jay Baruchel, did I?

Oh please. You sure as hell defended it with your own terrible made-up logic. The idea that they had to cast some geeky manboy to throw off audience suspicion is ridiculous and you know it.

Here's the problem with that approach...

A, that sounds cheesy.

Yeah, totally worse than JAY BARUCHEL as your big bad.

B, I'm fairly certain they'd still suspect the handsome corporate businessman of being a villain if he had any of his character traits intact.

Maxwell Lord was not a villain for years and years in the actual comics. Furthermore, the audience isn't idiotic enough to assume that ANY smiling businessman is a criminal. Especially if he helps the heroes at some point or has his life threatened by villains.

And if he' was not a rich, narcissistic, crafty, pseudo immoral shyster corporate type with a sarcastic edge...then he's not really Max Lord, and who CARES if they cast Baruchel? THAT would be pissing on the character. Casting Jay Baruchel just pissed on the character's appearance.

I didn't say he couldn't be crafty or narcissistic. Don't make things up to justify this lameass casting for a movie that never got made.

I don't think she's awful. Granted, she's playing a model in this.

Yeah, basically playing herself. What great acting chops.

They weren't ok with moving forward on JUSTICE LEAGUE: MORTAL, because they couldn't get the Australian tax breaks, couldn't afford to risk making the movie, and didn't want to risk it.

This is a studio with a proven history of screwing up their superhero blockbusters. And if they were so confident in Justice League Mortal, they wouldn't have hinged everything on a freaking Australian tax break. Face it, this was a knee jerk reaction to Superman Returns's disappointment. A blockbuster made with nobodies and hopefully on the cheap.

I don't think the reasons are all that mysterious.

She looks quite a bit like Wonder Woman.

If tall pretty brunette is all they chose her for, then there are numerous actual actresses they could've picked. It's stupid to target her before seeing anything, plain and simple.

A cartoon Batman, maybe.

Wow, thanks for the compliment man!
You're just saying anything you can now to defend your own questionable logic, aren't you?

No, I couldn't play Batman, live action or animated. My voice is all wrong, and I have zero acting experience. If I tried it would look and sound ridiculous. I'm not an actor. But thanks for thinking that I could be, just because I've been a fan. Hey maybe they should slash the budgets and get rid of the big name voice actors in future animated projects, and just open their auditions to fanboys on the street. Seriously, what the hell.

 

[BATZARRO WWD]

Seriously Guard this is a dead project. Its no longer necessary to homer a dead project that is dead. QUOTE]

Whoever, it IS necessary to raise pitchforks amd yell "let's get em!" everytime someone mentions it.

I don't think what Guard is doing can be properly described as homering. Some of us still have things to say about Justice League Mortal. Some of us still have curiousity. Or is the movie not even worthy of "wondering"? Is anything short of outright disdain "homering".

What are YOU doing here? As you said, the movie's not happening. Or are you afraid if we talk about it too much Nolan's gonna cancel Batman 3?

 

[TheVileOne]

The answer is to your question since you asked is, no its not.

 

[Anita18]

Deep down I really want to believe that Chris Nolan pulled some sort of rank and killed the Justice League production.

Me too. Having two versions of Batman exist concurrently was idiotic to begin with, not even counting the fact that they were going to be completely different characterizations and worlds.

And actors often work with a bunch of people to get ready for their roles. Not just trainers to bulk up, but other things too. The pre-prod work for JLA isn't all that surprising to me.

 

[BATZARRO WWD]

The answer is to your question since you asked is, no its not.

Good. We're making some progress in this. It is not worthy of wondering. So, how come a non-happening cultural expression earned such a status? How can a movie we knew so little about become so wretched in your opinion that it should essentially never be discussed? Because my apreciation of your attitude is that it's more than the ussual fanboy bias; It feels like it's personal.

 

[TheVileOne]

I just think its stupid to dwell so much on WHAT COULD'VE BEEN anymore because its not happening. It's been almost three years.

 

[Evil Twin]

Yeah, and only now are people that were involved in the production starting to speak out about it.

Maybe we'll actually learn something substantial about the production one of these days instead of all the reflexive knee jerking that went on in a vacuum of information. Heck, I expect that the real reason that it didn't get made was simply one of expense and intra-company politics.

I expect that if we knew the total picture, that the perspective movie would neither have been a total disaster or a total success, but a movie that had some good points and bad and some interesting ideas. Albeit, some people describing Batman as someone suffering from paranoia and some method acting exercises don't tell us a whole lot. At some point the visuals are likely to leak though and that will tell us something substantial, the script will leak or someone will do a thorough review, and one of the cast or crew will talk.

 

[GL1]

I just realized I was about to get into an argument about a movie that's not going to be made.

The core issue, as far as I can tell: All information we have points to an exceptional film. Only illogical fanboy bias seems to naysay the film. Who cares if you can't believe if young actors can carry the film, or if models cant act, or if Max Lord doesn't look like he does in the comics. The complaints against this film, both now, and then, are either based on popular fanboi myths, or have nothing to do with the quality of the film.

And some of you still haven't figured out that this was our only shot at a Justice League movie, among other things, perhaps in our lifetime, certainly in the next 10-20 years. If the ignorant "fan" outcry had more of a responsibility in the skewering of this project, I'd actually be upset, as is, I feel it's poetically just. Have fun with the current WB regime. It's all you want, it's all you get.

 

[mat-chow]

I just realized I was about to get into an argument about a movie that's not going to be made.

The core issue, as far as I can tell: All information we have points to an exceptional film. Only illogical fanboy bias seems to naysay the film. Who cares if you can't believe if young actors can carry the film, or if models cant act, or if Max Lord doesn't look like he does in the comics. The complaints against this film, both now, and then, are either based on popular fanboi myths, or have nothing to do with the quality of the film.

And some of you still haven't figured out that this was our only shot at a Justice League movie, among other things, perhaps in our lifetime, certainly in the next 10-20 years. If the ignorant "fan" outcry had more of a responsibility in the skewering of this project, I'd actually be upset, as is, I feel it's poetically just. Have fun with the current WB regime. It's all you want, it's all you get.

Thumbs up for sure. While I am excited for what's coming, I was (and am still) VERY interested in this movie, and at the time was very excited for IT.

 

[GlasgowBat]

? Is there something wrong with the current approach WB is taking towards DC films? Green lantern next year, with sequels already planned. Batman and Superman in 2012, with work being done on a Flash script. This is really rather encouraging, particularly in comparison to what we had when JL:Mortal was in the pipeline.

It was that, and Nolan Bat-movies. Wow, that would have been much better.

I find it interesting that people state on one hand that we know very little of this project, yet on the other are happy to declare it seems like it was shaping up to be "exceptional". I find such contradictions difficult to reconcile.

Indeed, I would suggest that, on the balance, the only reasonable assumption is that this would have been a mixed bag. A fairly interesting concept based on some good and some not-so-good stroy elements from the comics, as well as an action packed and non-formulaic narrative. However, the fact that they were hell-bent on creating a franchise led them to pursue younger actors as opposed to simply the best ones for the job. The principle of wanting a franchise is not in itself a bad one, quite the contrary. However, this intentional pursuit of young, and mostly inexperienced actors could, and most likely would, have had a detrimental effect on the quality of the film.

Furthermore, we cannot ignore the comments of Hammer regarding Batman. The character interpretations, particularly key members such as Batman, are pivotal to any film version. Now, it is true that we cannot be certain to what extent "paranoid schizophrenic" really applies to the script itself, or wether this was a slip of the tounge from Hammer or indeed any psychiatrist. However, it is not unreasonable to take what he said at face value, as it's the only info we really have to go on, and he is about as good a source as your likely to get unless the script turns up.

Hammer describes it as this, as far as I understand it(and my interpretation could be faulty, it happens occassionally); he was being told how a paranoid schizophrenic would react to whichever scenario was being discussed. This suggests that the portrayol was indeed this. Now, I contest this version of Batman. The "Bat-dick", frank miller inspired(not his fault though, it must be remembered) Batman came in for, and still comes in for, understandable flack from fans. It goes against key principles of the character. Grant Morrison really is the best person i've heard explain it, but even though Bruce is imperfect and can make faulty calls from time to time based on strain or collective traumatic experiences/stresses accumulating, he is a master of advanced yoga techniques and martial arts, all aimed at preventing such mental breakdowns. What is so great about Batman is his representation of the potential strength of the spirit and emoptional and mental resilience of human beings. He keeps going, keeps fighting, despite the tragedy, despite tha pain, despite the loss. He never gives in.

Indeed, greg Ruck never once contradicts this in OMAC project. He simply shows us that an ill-devised reactionary surveillance system for the meta-human/superhero community can be taken advantage of. The Bruce wayne of that story is not paranoid, nor is he schizophrenic. He is, like in Morrison's books, a complex, interesting and imperfect character, very human in many respects.

However, we have all seen the school of thought(some of them write comics, to our beloved mediums eternal shame) who embrace the paranoid, Bat-dick version as the epitome of coolness, and feel that this is the only "interesting" way that the character can be portrayed. It's popularity stems from TDKR, which is actually justified in that this portrayol fits the context of the story. As Morrison said, Being Batman hasn't made Bruce insane; it's kept him sane.

The weakest at least interesting version of the character is this paranoid, schizophrenic Bat-Dick that is so popular amongst some, and again, considering Hammer's comments it is not unreasonable to assume this was the direction they were taking. Afterall, it's pretty much what he said. Could this be the result of miscommunication? sure. But it's all we have to go on. So until we hear more, i'm standing by my relief that this didin't go ahead, and I eagerly await the time when they don't just give us the Justice league, but give us them done well.

 

[GL1]

There are several things wrong with WB's current approach. They're creating great characters, but they don't resemble, internally, the characters in the comics to me. Additionally, they're not looking to make any team ups of any kind, and taking the DC universe as a group of separate individual properties. It's an approach that has positive and negative aspects. I don't like the negatives. In comparison, making the odd assumption that the approaches are mutually exclusive, we'll see if the current regime is better, though I suspect, for the general audience, it will be, and for fans of the comics, it will not be.

I'm not sure why we'd suggest a mixed bag when we have such little reason to think negatively about the film. We know production investment virtually always results in a better film with one or two exceptions. Of these actors that we've seen act, they've proven themselves to be exceptionally talented beyond their peers. Why would we assume the other young actors, chosen through the same process, were inferior in any way? We don't know everything about the film, yes, but everything we know is, arguably, positive.

The only exception, of course is a crazy Batman, the kind I like. That, of course, is a matter of personal taste, and I believe it stems from how we view Batman. Is Batman someone we want to be like? Then no, we like sane Batman who is a master of all applicable human disciplines (ie, doesn't need sleep, can avoid the mental and emotional consequences of his lifestyle by meditation, etc). Is Batman someone we like to gawk at? Then, yeah, we like insane Batman who has sacrificed internal things in order to become the man who can do anything. He's the most compelling version for those who don't see themselves as Batman, or see Batman's accomplishments as achievable by a normal human being, and he's vastly more useful narratively in an ensemble cast, and I agree that that's the direction they were taking. I do think it's unreasonable to think they would use the symptoms of paroschizo that Batman doesn't exhibit in the comics.

 

[biolumen]

Hammer talks some more Batman and Justice League.

Of course, you had a little bit of superhero experience already with George Miller's Justice League, where you were cast as Batman. I know the movie was scuttled just before it was supposed to start shooting, but I also read that you never got a picture of yourself in the costume? Can't you just send George Miller an e-mail asking for that, Armie?

Oh, dude, I would do anything for that! I would paint that on my living room wall. I would tattoo that on my back. No, like when we were down there on the soundstages, they would take our cell phones from us if they had cameras on them. This was so top secret and so locked down, it was like walking into the Pentagon.

There have been a lot of Batman costumes, from the outlandish Joel Schumacher costumes to the more grounded battle armor of Christopher Nolan's films. What kind of take did George Miller have in mind?

It was very, very character-specific. It did have a semblance of a battle-armor feel, but at the same time, because it was so character-specific, it was all made out of the finest materials. Because Batman has such incredible resources, his utility belt was made from the finest Italian leather and highly polished, and the things that would come out of his forearm, they were titanium but wrapped in very fine leather. I mean, it was all really well-done, very utilitarian. This was before Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight had come out, and this was going to be the first movie where Batman would be able to turn his head [in the cowl]. We had the first bat-suit that let the head turn, it just never got the chance to make it onto the screen.

I'm still surprised that it didn't happen. I know there were budget issues and the WGA strike sapped the movie's momentum, but Miller had it so planned out that it's hard to believe he simply walked away from it. And now he seems to be running into problems with his Mad Max reboot.

I know, the poor guy. He's such a genius, too! It's a shame. The thing with Justice League is that he created an entire universe, and everything was done. They had pre-vizzed a lot of the special-effects sequences, and we saw some of the fight sequences without even having filmed them yet. There was a giant room that he had turned into the storyboard room — this huge conference room that had floor-to-ceiling storyboards on the walls — and you'd start at one point and just walk around the entire room and by the time you were done, it was frame-for-frame the entire movie. We saw it on paper and we were going to bring it to life, we just never got the chance.

So now what happens to that stuff? It just gets locked in a box and put in the Warner Bros. basement, Raiders of the Lost Ark–style?

Yeah, I guess so. One of the most crippling things that happened to us financially was that the Australian government denied us a 40 percent tax rebate that we were supposed to get. We had a crew entirely comprised of Australians, the director was Australian, most of the producers were down there in Australia ... it was Australian through and through, but they felt we hadn't hired enough Australian actors. And of the main cast, three or four of them were Australian and there's only, like, seven [main characters], so I don't know how many they wanted. But they denied us that 40 percent tax credit and with a budget that size, 40 percent is something you just can't leave on the table.

Did you learn anything from the prep for that movie that you were able to use later? I mean, you were even shadowing Australian detectives for the role, right?

No, not Australian detectives, Australian special forces!

Oh, wow.

Yeah, so it was even more bad-ass. [Laughs.] I was learning insertion techniques, gun handling … all the stuff that Batman has to know because he doesn't have superpowers. He's human, so he has to be the consummate fighter but he also has to have a detective's mind, so we would spend a lot of time cultivating that. You'd be handling situations and finding people's weaknesses and exploiting them. It was very Machiavellian, in a way.

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/10/armie_hammer_interview.html

 

[GlasgowBat]

, and he's vastly more useful narratively in an ensemble cast,

Considering That the JLA revamp led by Morrison is considered one of the best and was one of the most popular, this statment does not necessarily ring true.

I also take umbrage at the suggestion that I must see myself as Batman to embrace the version i was describing. That's just ludicrous. I find that the most compelling, believable, entertaining and narratively rewarding rendition of the character.

 

[TheVileOne]

We don't even know what WB's current approach is because quite frankly, I don't think Johns and Nelson even know what they are doing yet.

 

[EliteF50]

I feel bad for Armie. I feel he would have been a great Batman, possible my favourite right after Keaton.

I hope he gets to play Batman in the reboot.