does anyone besides me have no faith?

[jmc]

I don't think the problem with Superman Returns was the action, it was the type of action. The action became redudant and didn't escalate into the 3rd act. The plane sequence was the biggest and best action sequence in the script, and the later sequences although eye pleasing, did not surpass that sequence. I think with a supervillian and supervillian action towards the end, the movie would have been better rounded.

For 200+million dollar film it sure as hell didn't look like it. It had 20 times the budget of the original movie and yet the best sequence they could come up with the the airplane crash. That happens half an hour into the film and then there's just a lot of flying around for the next 2 hours, it was a bland 200 million dollar film where not much happened, makes you wonder what exactly they spent 200 million on.

 

[Docker2.0]

For 200+million dollar film it sure as hell didn't look like it. It had 20 times the budget of the original movie and yet the best sequence they could come up with the the airplane crash. That happens half an hour into the film and then there's just a lot of flying around for the next 2 hours, it was a bland 200 million dollar film where not much happened, makes you wonder what exactly they spent 200 million on.

That was my biggest question! This movie looked like it cost $70 million and I'm being VERY generous. I seen episodes of Smallville and pornos that look like they cost more.

 

[Webhead2006]

lol yea and smallville episodes range only around 1million dollars or less to make/produce.

 

[The Major]

He didn't just lift things in SUPERMAN RETURNS. He lifted a CONTINENT, an AIRPLANE and a SPACE SHUTTLE, flew at incredible speeds and did some great maneuvers while doing so.
He also used his Heat Vision and Superbreath. He also walked into a hail of bullets and had them bounce of his chest.

All of which is has been done before. Lifting vehicles isn't interesting. The space shuttle thing was great but not in a world where we have special effects after The Matrix.

Superman is one of the most dangerous individuals in the DCU but the films rarely show him using his abilities to the maximum in fights. The closest we got was Zodd and the Nuclear Man. We have yet to see him fight an opponent on that level with the new technology for special effects.

And since when do people have a problem with Superman lifting heavy things? I mean, I get that he didn't punch anyone, but *****ing about his power usage in SUPERMAN RETURNS? Come on.

He's a super-hero. People don't want to see them rescue cats from trees or stop earthquakes. It's boring. They want them to beat the crap out of super-villains.

In a lot of ways, Superman just lifted things in SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, and the film made a ton of money. Granted, it was an origin movie, and the first really ambitious superhero movie ever...

Only difference is we don't want to watch a repeat of that. may as well just put that in th VCR.

Origin movies have their place. The public only knows the origins of Batman and Superman because it's been drilled into their heads for generations.

They'll be lost with an unknown character.

WW isn't any better. They know of her but it's either from Super Friends, Lynda Carter's tv show of the Justice League cartoon. The only who even bothers with her past is the JL cartoon, but even that is barely covered.

I bet most people don't even know how she was created, Pre or Post-Crisis. Her history with the Greek Gods and Paradise Island would be even less known. She's just Superman with boobs to them.

Still, the powers Superman used had nothing to do with why people didn't attend the movie in droves.

It might. A lot of people saw the Matrix because the fights were so awesome. We have the technology. Use it.

SUPERMAN RETURNS, while not reaching Superman's full potential, was nontheless an interesting, relevant story about The Man of Steel, with several huge action sequences and fantastic effects. If I'm WB, I'd be wondering why it didn't make much money, too.

Others have already gone into why Superman didn't go into his full potential, as a movie or a character. He does more interesting stuff in a random episode of his Timm cartoon series and Justice League/JLU cartoon.

I'm guessing it's because SUPERMAN RETURNS was a bit too "boring" for most people.

I liked it but didn't think it reached its potential.

Too much story, not enough continuous action, I.E something like BATMAN BEGINS or SPIDER-MAN.

They got the action and story at the right levels. The heroes were in fights where they were not only in danger but against actually terrifying enemies. Not insane real estate developers.

If people did see it, then most didn't go see it again.

Even people who liked the movie didn't have much reason to see it again. I know I didn't.

You can easily make that argument about almost any superhero movie franchise out there on some level.

It makes sense. Generalising never works.

It's irrelevant that it wasn't the best Superman product that could have been delivered. It was a pretty good product as a film. It was a huge movie, with huge, epic action sequences and plenty of drama and humor to boot. And it was about Superman, and it wasn't exactly panned at the box office, either. And people didn't go see it in droves.

Good when it could have been great. Epic action sequences which were mostly rescuing bystanders and stopping natural disasters when Superman could have been fighting a genuine threat to himself. When he did fight he had no power and was annihilated by common unpowered thugs.

The criminals with guns were there for money shots. They were no threat to Superman. We all knew that.

The drama and everything else were fine.

You think it's because the general public gives a crap about how faithful SUPERMAN RETURNS was to the mythos, or that Superman wasn't fighting Braniac? I sure don't.

They care abut the mythos. They just wanted something worthy of the franchise. Singer didn't deliver.

The continued use of Lex didn't help. There are other enemies Superman has.

Fighting something like Brainiac could have done wonders. Or some super-villain who hasn't been explored in film but gives Superman a much bigger threat then realty schemes.

How so? The script is what it is, the effects clearly weren't all that effected, and FOX wanted Cyclops marginalized regardless of Marsden's schedule. In what specific manner did "rushing" the production of X3 actually hurt the end product? Would Zak Penn and Simon Kinberg have suddenly sprouted amazing talent if they waited another six months to a year?

Rushing means they got less time to make the best material possible. While they aren't going to become genuises with added time the script, scenes, special effects, direction, editing and more could have done with more work.

Fox should have known better then to marginalise Marsden. They finally want to develop the Phoenix Saga and they want to penalise the actor who is the character that's one of the most vital for the story? They should more worried about the movie not company politics.

It's like taking Lois Lane out of a Superman movie. That's how crucial Cyclops is to Jean during the Phoenix Saga.

No I don't, and I never said that. If WB was a comic book studio, and didn't have to make TONS of other movies in other genres, it would make sense to see two, three superhero films a year come out from them.

Difference is comic companies don't rely on just Superman and Batman to sell comics. Variety rules.

All WB has bothered to do is rely on regurgitating Superman and Batman with huge budgets and the rest are pretty much garbage from head to toe. No respect, no budget, no passion. And they wonder why the unknown properties fail.

But since they've already got HARRY POTTER, the Batman franchise, and numerous other franchises and one shot films slated, it's not as simple as going "Ok, in 2010, we're gonna have GREEN LANTERN, WONDER WOMAN and THE FLASH".

If they're giving other lesser known properties the time of day why not Flash, GL or WW? They still want to use them in JL.

Give the properties respect, hire the best people for the job and make sure it's a good product. If it costs to much cut corners but only as a last resort. Do it creatively but make sure it doesn't effect the quality of the movies. WB is a studio who have been making movies for decades. They have no excuses for not knowing how to do this.

If it fails try again in a few years and work on a new comic property in the mean time. Learn what went wrong. Don't repeat mistakes. Most of all make the best films they can not deliver garbage and expect the fanboys to eat it up because it has their favorite comic title on it.

Let's be honest with ourselves. While solo efforts delve deeper into individual characters and their individual mythologies, the Justice League roster does not consist of characters that you have to "get to know" before JLA film will work. These are iconic, easily relatable characters.

I disagree. A JL film will barely explore these characters. With limit screen time, which I'm sure Batman and Superman will hog as much as possible, they'll quickly become charactures if not parodies.

People went into X-MEN blank. Think anyone came out of that not knowing at least the basics of what each character was like?

The only X-men who has a solo title is Wolverine. The rest are all tied to franchise as a team.

JL has five or more characters with their own complex histories that can't be summed up in five minutes. They can summarise it but I can't see how very much will get screen time. I doubt JL will show the Green Lantern Corps, spend much time on Themysceria, visit Atlantis for long, J'onn's history on Mars etc.

How do you figure the risk factor changes? The concepts are still a team of individual characters.

JL isn't not just a franchise in itself. It can branch off with other smaller franchises of each character. It's essentially putting several franchises at risk simultaneously. The solo films, if they were made, would also be forced into the JL continuity. If any of the lesser JL characters need to be improved or changed entirely not only with continuity confuse people but JL will probably win over due to it being the version the public is more used to.

BATMAN & ROBIN didn't kill the Batman franchise.

B & R sidelined the franchise for 7 years. If they can do that to a high profile franchise it's going to be much worse for a lesser known one.

The odd thing is they did that to themselves. That's also a worry.

If they messed up Batman what it will be ten times worse to a lesser property. They're probably turn Wonder Woman into a stripper or something equally silly.

I doubt WB would forever abandon all plans for Green Lantern, The Flash and Wonder Woman if a JLA movie failed (which is highly unlikely).

They abandoned WW to make this movie. Supergirl got a movie made before she did. It was bad, but it's still made.

Flash and GL have been in limbo forever. Thank god the Eddie Murphy and Jack Back GL's never made it to the screen. WB's sitting on a Star Wars epic and they're treating it like The Mask.

The best treatment Flash got was a live action tv show that lasted a season. Other then that nothing.

Green Arrow, Martian Manhunter, Aquaman and others didn't even get that far.

Catwoman got a movie. But that was mostly because of her ties to Batman then they made a turkey who had nothing to do with the character except the code name.

How would JLA be messing with the Nolan franchise?

Talia's mere presence interferes with the franchise. Making her avenging her father's death ties it to close to BB continuity.

Batman will act very differently for JL, too. Having a realistic Batman in JL won't work very well. Not if they want him to any use to the League. Best to wait for Nolan's trilogy to end. Then they can do their own version of Batgod.

They will have to make a convincing version of Batman who can hang with threats that would give Superman or Green Lantern trouble. A realistic Batman wouldn't cut it. People will expect him to die within five minutes.

Try four. I don't expect WB to be making Batman films after the third movie.

I seriously doubt WB is going to stop making Batman movies. Not when it's their only comic franchise that can make them money.

If it is four when the time is up will they just make another JL film or solo films? More importantly will they learn what went wrong?

They changed the character's hair color and nationality. Yeah, that's a big change, but other than that, the movie was fairly faithful to the source material.

They toned his personality down considerably. This was a concept which would have to be R-rated to do justice to it.

John is basically a con man who is extremely smart and manipulative. Who smokes and not a nice guy.

They barely tapped into this. Like I said it was closer to Dresden Files.

Making a concept Americanised doesn't automatically mean its better.

It's not like John is from Thailand. He's British.

Films with British characters can do well. Films with characters from other planets can do well.

And it was a good flick, and people ate it up. I would call it a success on WB's part.

It was a good flick but that it seriously pissed the Hellblazer fans off. The fact that WB had no faith in the original concept is worrying.

Does anyone actually expect WATCHMEN to fail?

Watchmen is the holy grail of super-hero comics. It's a concept that's extremely tough to film within one movie.

LOTR had 3 movies. Watchmen's something that should have been a mini-series on HBO. That's how complex it is. Have you read it?

I'm not talking about movies that were bad. I was being sarcastic. Pointing out that WB's comic book/superhero movie output over the last several years has been fairly impressive in most respects.

They have a mixed track record. Fact is the higher profile the comic franchise is the more respect it gets.

What if the director does get the property?

I'll believe it when I see it.

What if it doesn't?

I'll believe it when I see it.

I don't think that's going to work with a project like this. This aint SIN CITY. This is THE JUSTICE LEAGUE.

I was refering to their skills as directors which can make movies with shoestring budgets and make films that look they cost ten times that. Riami is another who can do this. Jackson, as well.

Which is why they're set on making JLA to feel out the public's feelings about these heroes.

The public barely knows these heroes. At best they know their code names, a vague clue of what they look like and a tiny bit of how they're powers work.

WB has the chance to bring them to the screen. Make them live up to their potential. They shouldn't be relegated to being sidekicks for Batman and Superman.

Superman isn't GL or WW. Exactly. I would say that over the majority of the last 50 years, Superman is far and away the most popular and iconic superhero in the world. GL and WW aren't even close to his level of popularity.

Exactly.

Superman didn't get that way by accident. The concept is catchy but it also was backed up by numerous cartoons, merchandise, live action tv shows and movies.

The only other franchise WB does the same is Batman. The rest's only hope is to appear in JL cartoon or its movies and bad live action tv shows. Birds of Prey comes to mind.

So if a close to $200 million dollar Superman film performs less than impressively when it's the first one in decades, what is WB's incentive to throw $170-200 million into Green Lantern and Wonder Woman projects?

They should learn from the experience.

WB screwed up with both Batman and Superman. Some of the biggest icons in the world. If they can do that with them what changed that makes them suddenly "get" the lesser known properties now?

In a project that will give these characters less screen time. They even have to deal with both Superman and Batman stealing the spotlight.

SPIDER-MAN is a different case. SPIDER-MAN clearly has a massive built in market: Children. Now, I suppose Superman could have, and that's likely where WB made a misstep in their film production.

Agreed on the children aspect.

The difference is Sony knew how Spiderman worked. They were able to translate this to the screen.

WB has made Superman boring and Batman into a joke until Nolan revived it.

I loved HELLBOY, but HELLBOY cost a THIRD to make of what SUPERMAN RETURNS did. And it made it's money back, but it wasn't such a huge success at the box office that you can call it a smash hit.

They executed it smartly. Giving any movie $100 million doesn't automatically mean its going to be good.

HELLBOY cost $66 million. It made $99 million worldwide. A decent performance, but not a massive hit on any level. If anything, DVD sales are what made HELLBOY 2 a reality.

Every film ever made gets money back on video or DVD now.

This is why I think they should take baby steps with lesser properties that have smaller budgets. Of course, this would require quality control so they won't become X-men lite, Birds of Prey, or worse.

WB would also need to hire people who can give these characters justice and the respect they deserve.

I'm pretty sure someone inside WB does. But does most of the public?

Who? How much power do they have? Are they listened to? How much impact do they have on the franchises that have the characters?

They couldn't even get a WW film made with Joss Whedon writing the screenplay. She'll have less screen time on JL and she's not exactly the easiest heroine to write.

The point I was making is that the public doesn't. Even WW is just Lynda Carter in a costume and a lasso to them.

I mean, I want to see other heroes get movies as much as any of you, and I want to see a JLA movie. I wish there was an easy answer to all this. But clearly there isn't. And I don't really blame WB for that at this point. Maybe if THE DARK KNIGHT is an enormous hit...

Maybe?

The chances of it succeeding are much better then not. Nolan and Bale have the credibility to bring the GA to the theatres after Begins. They made Batman relevant again. Not an easy feat.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

For 200+million dollar film it sure as hell didn't look like it. It had 20 times the budget of the original movie and yet the best sequence they could come up with the the airplane crash. That happens half an hour into the film and then there's just a lot of flying around for the next 2 hours, it was a bland 200 million dollar film where not much happened, makes you wonder what exactly they spent 200 million on.

Didn't Singer grow his own corn for the Smallville scenes? I guess that can get pretty expensive.

 

[jmc]

JL isn't not just a franchise in itself. It can branch off with other smaller franchises of each character. It's essentially putting several franchises at risk simultaneously. The solo films, if they were made, would also be forced into the JL continuity. If any of the lesser JL characters need to be improved or changed entirely not only with continuity confuse people but JL will probably win over due to it being the version the public is more used to.

Unlikely, tying solo films into the same continuity as JL will only cause dramas for the writers and directors because they won't be able to do anything with the character without having to consult the rules set by JL, it limits what you can do to the character, or worse, the director might be stuck with an actor they think is not right for their movie. If Bats and Big Blue can have different continuities, so can the others.

 

[The Major]

Unlikely, tying solo films into the same continuity as JL will only cause dramas for the writers and directors because they won't be able to do anything with the character without having to consult the rules set by JL, it limits what you can do to the character, or worse, the director might be stuck with an actor they think is not right for their movie. If Bats and Big Blue can have different continuities, so can the others.

If JL is a hit wouldn't WB be more inclined to tie it to it continuity?

GL can easily be tied to JL since there is basically an inter-galactic army of them. They have two Flashes and could even go back to Jay Derrick showing adventures from the past, but thats trickier.

The rest don't have that luxury.

I think it would be best to just leave the solo films with seperate continuity from JL. The JL versions would have to be close simularity, though.

 

[jmc]

If JL is a hit wouldn't WB be more inclined to tie it to it continuity?

No, they'll be more incline to do sequels to JL.

GL can easily be tied to JL since there is basically an inter-galactic army of them. They have two Flashes and could even go back to Jay Derrick showing adventures from the past, but thats trickier.

JL is GL is John Stewart, GL solo is gonna be Hal, it's a new character, you're starting from scratch so what's the point of keeping the same continuity if the characters are gonna be different?

I think it would be best to just leave the solo films with seperate continuity from JL. The JL versions would have to be close simularity, though.

Agreed, except there should be no or as few similarities as possible.

 

[The Major]

No, they'll be more incline to do sequels to JL.

Agreed.

But they shouldn't limit it to just JL. Makes sense to do the sequels first, though. Finish a trilogy back to back then do the solos.

JL is GL is John Stewart, GL solo is gonna be Hal, it's a new character, you're starting from scratch so what's the point of keeping the same continuity if the characters are gonna be different?

That's my point. They can have multiple GL's in a single continuity. That way the characters won't be over exposed in the same universe.

Agreed, except there should be no or as few similarities as possible.

They have little choice. They're all based off the same original material. Naturally the versions will be slightly different due to seperate experiences but they will be in trouble if they change things to much. I'm sure WB doesn't want another Catwoman on their hands because thats where it'll lead.

 

[jmc]

That's my point. They can have multiple GL's in a single continuity. That way the characters won't be over exposed in the same universe.

Again, why bother tying it to JL? Different GL character, different settings, different story, what would be the reference to JL, the costume?

They have little choice. They're all based off the same original material. Naturally the versions will be slightly different due to seperate experiences but if they will be in trouble if they change things to much. I'm sure WB doesn't want another Catwoman on their hands because thats where it'll lead.

Just because they're based off the same material doesn't mean they can't be poles apart in terms of character, look, casting, tone and story. It all comes down to interpretation, you give 10 directors the opportunity to bring say Flash to the screen, you'll get 10 different Flash movies.

 

[The Major]

Again, why bother tying it to JL? Different GL character, different settings, different story, what would be the reference to JL, the costume?

Because there are 4 Earth GL's to use. They can have characters briefly mention events in JL without the GL in JL appearing or use him as a co-star or cameo.

Everything else is up to the GL creators to execute.

The costume is no problem. Just have movie GL's be able to make their own unique costumes. They have done it in the comics.

Just because they're based off the same material doesn't mean they can't be poles apart in terms of character, look, casting, tone and story. It all comes down to interpretation, you give 10 directors the opportunity to bring say Flash to the screen, you'll get 10 different Flash movies.

So long as we don't end up with a garbage pretender whose only link is the name it'll be okay.

There will be different versions but they must use the source material as a starting point. If these characters have little to do with the actual premise of what they're supposed to be like they may as well give them new names altogther so they don't tarnish he franchise of the original character.

 

[jmc]

Because there are 4 Earth GL's to use. They can have characters briefly mention events in JL without the GL in JL appearing or use him as a co-star or cameo.

Everything else is up to the GL creators to execute.

Just coz there are 4 Earth Green Lanterns doesn't mean they'll be use in a GL film. The film will most likely be a Hal Jordon story, therefore it is pointless having brief mentions or cameos regarding a different GL's past actions.

 

[The Major]

Just coz there are 4 Earth Green Lanterns doesn't mean they'll be use in a GL film. The film will most likely be a Hal Jordon story, therefore it is pointless having brief mentions or cameos regarding a different GL's past actions.

All I'm saying is that the multiple GL's would be easier to tie into JL continity then the rest of the characters.

 

[jmc]

^ I will agree that of all the JL character, GL would be the easiest if it were the same character, but I just find it a fruitless exercise forcing a link when we're getting two different lead GL's for two different films.

 

[The Major]

^ I will agree that of all the JL character, GL would be the easiest if it were the same character, but I just find it a fruitless exercise forcing a link when we're getting two different lead GL's for two different films.

I agree.

 

[Docker2.0]

Didn't Singer grow his own corn for the Smallville scenes? I guess that can get pretty expensive.

Agreed! Singer just wasted movie on stupid stuff. I feel bad for Routh. THere's no telling what Singer made him do to get that part.

JL is GL is John Stewart, GL solo is gonna be Hal, it's a new character, you're starting from scratch so what's the point of keeping the same continuity if the characters are gonna be different?

That's what confuses me to. WB doesn't have a clue WTF they are doing.

 

[dark_b]

Didn't Singer grow his own corn for the Smallville scenes? I guess that can get pretty expensive.

you are aware that they replaced it with CGI corn right?

 

[The Guard]

I don't think the problem with Superman Returns was the action, it was the type of action. The action became redudant and didn't escalate into the 3rd act. The plane sequence was the biggest and best action sequence in the script, and the later sequences although eye pleasing, did not surpass that sequence. I think with a supervillian and supervillian action towards the end, the movie would have been better rounded.

It just wasn't an issue with me. He lifted a plane, and then a yacht, and then a freaking continent. I mean, look at CASINO ROYALE. Nothing later on touched that early chase sequence, and it's still a pretty good movie.

For 200+million dollar film it sure as hell didn't look like it.

And what does a $200 million film look like, pray tell? SMALLVILLE's effects don't even come close.

It had 20 times the budget of the original movie

Sure, but you have to adjust for inflation.

and yet the best sequence they could come up with the the airplane crash.

Which was freaking amazing. There has never been anything like that even attempted in a live action movie, let alone so fantastically realized.

That happens half an hour into the film and then there's just a lot of flying around for the next 2 hours, it was a bland 200 million dollar film where not much happened, makes you wonder what exactly they spent 200 million on.

"Not much happened"?

You've got Superman flying after and catching a plummeting airplane and a shuttle, pulling a yacht out of the ocean, undergoing a beating from Luthor and his goons, lifting a continent of Kryptonite, doing all that stuff in Metropolis and elsewhere in the world...

Compare that to how much stuff Batman does in BATMAN BEGINS. It's about the same, I'd think.

All of which is has been done before. Lifting vehicles isn't interesting. The space shuttle thing was great but not in a world where we have special effects after The Matrix.

We get it. You want to see him punching things. Because god knows THAT would take some incredible effects...

Superman is one of the most dangerous individuals in the DCU but the films rarely show him using his abilities to the maximum in fights. The closest we got was Zodd and the Nuclear Man. We have yet to see him fight an opponent on that level with the new technology for special effects.

This attitude is starting to chafe. This nonsensical "Superman didn't throw any punches so he must not have done anything super" thing.

He's a super-hero. People don't want to see them rescue cats from trees or stop earthquakes. It's boring. They want them to beat the crap out of super-villains.

It's boring to you, maybe. Superman saves lives. Does he get into fights a lot nowadays? Sure, but he's first and foremost about saving lives.

Only difference is we don't want to watch a repeat of that. may as well just put that in th VCR.

Please. You did not see the things that happened in SUPERMAN RETURNS happen in SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE. And if you think you did, you are delusional. It's like whining that Batman beats up thugs in BATMAN BEGINS because he did it in BATMAN and each subsequent Batman movie.

Origin movies have their place. The public only knows the origins of Batman and Superman because it's been drilled into their heads for generations.

The problem here is that you seem to think that you have to have an entire movie to explain some rather simple concepts to people.

They'll be lost with an unknown character.

Then the movie can elaborate on the character. Simple.

WW isn't any better. They know of her but it's either from Super Friends, Lynda Carter's tv show of the Justice League cartoon. The only who even bothers with her past is the JL cartoon, but even that is barely covered.

So...a JUSTICE LEAGUE movie can cover more about her.

I bet most people don't even know how she was created, Pre or Post-Crisis. Her history with the Greek Gods and Paradise Island would be even less known. She's just Superman with boobs to them.

So make her origins part of the movie's exploration. This is not a difficult concept.

Others have already gone into why Superman didn't go into his full potential, as a movie or a character. He does more interesting stuff in a random episode of his Timm cartoon series and Justice League/JLU cartoon.

I have never seen a sequence as cool as the falling plane in any animated series or Justice League episode. They simply don't have the time or the budget to devote to something like that.

They got the action and story at the right levels. The heroes were in fights where they were not only in danger but against actually terrifying enemies. Not insane real estate developers.

Ok...so because Lex has larger ambitions about real estate...it's somehow less chilling that he's having Superman beat to a pulp and stabbing him with Kryptonite?

Good when it could have been great. Epic action sequences which were mostly rescuing bystanders and stopping natural disasters when Superman could have been fighting a genuine threat to himself. When he did fight he had no power and was annihilated by common unpowered thugs.

And that dynamic, Superman being powerless, is the entire point.

The criminals with guns were there for money shots. They were no threat to Superman. We all knew that.

Most things aren't a threat to Superman? Isn't that kinda the point of having something threaten him later on?

They care abut the mythos. They just wanted something worthy of the franchise. Singer didn't deliver.

You are deluding yourself if you think people didn't go see Superman because the mythos wasn't represented, or that the average person gives a piss about the Christopher Reeve Superman franchise.

The continued use of Lex didn't help. There are other enemies Superman has.

And how many of the general public actually know or care about any villain other than Lex? You're looking at this in fanboy terms, not in the way the public approaches a Superman movie.

Rushing means they got less time to make the best material possible.

They had plenty of time.

While they aren't going to become genuises with added time the script, scenes, special effects, direction, editing and more could have done with more work.

Oh really? Please. Be specific.

Fox should have known better then to marginalise Marsden. They finally want to develop the Phoenix Saga and they want to penalise the actor who is the character that's one of the most vital for the story? They should more worried about the movie not company politics.

They should be doing that, but weren't. This is my point. The timing/schedule of the movie had little to do with the things that were actually wrong with it. The things that were wrong with it were going to be wrong with it regardless of whether or not they rushed the movie.

If they're giving other lesser known properties the time of day why not Flash, GL or WW? They still want to use them in JL.

You obviously don't understand what I'm driving at. I'm not saying WB couldn't make these movies if they didn't want to. But they can't make them all in a short timeframe. WB has to devote money to making other kinds of movies, because it is not just a comic book movie studio, it's a movie studio, period.

If you run a restaurant, you cannot just make one dish and hope to succeed, because some people won't like that dish or that kind of dish, they'll want something else.

disagree. A JL film will barely explore these characters. With limit screen time, which I'm sure Batman and Superman will hog as much as possible, they'll quickly become charactures if not parodies.

No, that's your assumption. And read half the JLA comics ever written. The less popular characters aren't generally explored that deeply to begin with.

The only X-men who has a solo title is Wolverine. The rest are all tied to franchise as a team.

So what? Does the fact that the X-Men don't all have solo titles have a thing to do with whether the basics of them can be shown in a team up movie? No, and neither does it have any bearing on the concepts for the JLA members.

JL has five or more characters with their own complex histories that can't be summed up in five minutes. They can summarise it but I can't see how very much will get screen time. I doubt JL will show the Green Lantern Corps, spend much time on Themysceria, visit Atlantis for long, J'onn's history on Mars etc.

Here's the thing some of you don't seem to grasp. You seem to want the impossible, and then you ***** when it doesn't happen. You seem to want JUSTICE LEAGUE to introduce the world to EVERYTHING IMPORTANT about EACH character somehow. In one movie. And that's just an unrealistic expectation on every level. But the basics behind each character can easily be covered. And that's all a JLA movie should need to do. Because JLA isn't about the details of how John Stewart got the power ring, or John Stewart training with the Corps, it's about how John Stewart interacts with the Justice League, and how they interact with him.

The entire point of bringing these heroes together is not to show each of their origins or where they happen live. That's what solo movies are for. But that's not to say that JUSTICE LEAGUE can't hint/show those elements. It need not spend a lot of time there for those elements to have an impact.

JL isn't not just a franchise in itself. It can branch off with other smaller franchises of each character. It's essentially putting several franchises at risk simultaneously. The solo films, if they were made, would also be forced into the JL continuity. If any of the lesser JL characters need to be improved or changed entirely not only with continuity confuse people but JL will probably win over due to it being the version the public is more used to.

You still haven't answered my initial question? How is THE JUSTICE LEAGUE somehow more of a risk than X-MEN was?

B & R sidelined the franchise for 7 years. If they can do that to a high profile franchise it's going to be much worse for a lesser known one.

No, it didn't. It sidelined it for about three years, tops. It took seven years for the next Batman movie to actually appear (BATMAN BEGINS, remember, was in the works from late 2003 on, and YEAR ONE was being developed/considered for several years before that), but WB quickly got back into wanting to make Batman movies again after BATMAN & ROBIN. Just because BATMAN BEGINS came out in 2005 doesn't mean BATMAN & ROBIN made WB abandon all plans/desire to make Batman movies during that timeframe.

WB abandoned WONDER WOMAN because Joel Silver abandoned Wonder Woman, not just to make JUSTICE LEAGUE.

And listen to yourself: "All Flash had had is a live action TV show"? Oh, is that it? You apparently ignored the four seasons of JUSTICE LEAGUE animated.

Talia's mere presence interferes with the franchise. Making her avenging her father's death ties it to close to BB continuity.

Barely. Since Talia wasn't even mentioned in BATMAN BEGINS, it's a vague tie at best. And since fans are crying about how things will fit together, wouldn't fitting things together be a good idea?

Batman will act very differently for JL, too. Having a realistic Batman in JL won't work very well. Not if they want him to any use to the League. Best to wait for Nolan's trilogy to end. Then they can do their own version of Batgod.

I'm sorry...I'd forgotten you had read the script. Please, elaborate on how they will characterize Batman in JUSTICE LEAGUE. And be detailed.

They will have to make a convincing version of Batman who can hang with threats that would give Superman or Green Lantern trouble.

It's called "suspension of disbelief". It does exist, and people can use it. They don't just forget it in order to pull apart a work of fantasy adventure.

"But...but why isn't the highly trained martial artist who isn't even encountering the OMACs himself and is mostly behind the scenes or in his high tech jet dying?"

They toned his personality down considerably. This was a concept which would have to be R-rated to do justice to it.

How so? The core of the character was there. I'd love to cry about he wasn't "F this" and "F that" and "I'm gonna bang me a hooker", but I just can't.

I was refering to their skills as directors which can make movies with shoestring budgets and make films that look they cost ten times that. Riami is another who can do this. Jackson, as well.

Elaborate. Which movies have these directors made that look like they cost ten times their budget? Robert Rodriguez makes pretty straightforward stuff, and last time I checked, LORD OF THE RINGS wasn't on a shoestring budget. In fact, New Line had to give Jackson more money as the project wore on. Neither were any of the SPIDER-MAN movies anything close to cheap. I would question where his budget WENT with SPIDER-MAN 3. Hell, even DARKMAN cost $16 million to make, and certainly didn't look much like it.

The public barely knows these heroes. At best they know their code names, a vague clue of what they look like and a tiny bit of how they're powers work.

Go look at the last few superhero movies (that weren't about the Matrix) made about characters the public barely knows. Look at how much money they made overall. It is not as simple as "Here's a cool movie". You have got to have something to sell it on, and recognizability is part of that equation.

WB has made Superman boring and Batman into a joke until Nolan revived it.

Superman being boring is your opinion. And the only time Batman was a joke was in BATMAN & ROBIN. Before that, the franchise was making big money.

They executed it smartly. Giving any movie $100 million doesn't automatically mean its going to be good.

How was HELLBOY done any "smarter" than SUPERMAN RETURNS? It was a creature action movie with a semblance of plot.

The chances of it succeeding are much better then not. Nolan and Bale have the credibility to bring the GA to the theatres after Begins. They made Batman relevant again. Not an easy feat.

Maybe?

Yes, maybe. I didn't say "maybe The Dark Knight will be a hit", I said "Maybe IF The Dark Knight is an enormous hit", meaning "WB might see fit to put more DC properties into production.

I don't what I can tell you in terms of WB not being uber faithful to the comic material. BATMAN BEGINS wasn't, either, and I don't expect THE DARK KNIGHT to be. I mean, you can go on and on about "I hope they learn from their mistakes, but I'm worried", and "WB needs to hire people with respect for these properties", and it's just not going to make one iota of difference. We all know what SHOULD be done.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I mean I guess its a reason for why we have no faith in JLA... but rehashing what was wrong with SR isn't going to help talk about how to get a JLA done right... if you guys want to keep beating that horse then go for it... but as for this movie... I respect Guards opinions and obviously he wants a JLA movie... but I am just still having trouble as to why it still potentially CAN be in the same timeline as Batman Begins... not the same time per say, but in the same string of events of that universe... I mean don't you (Guard) think that one of the reasons why they had to rewrite the script were because of possible overlaps with Nolan's movies that the studio had conflicting thoughts about... we have already talked about this before so you don't need to rehash... and I agree with most of the things you have said about this issue... but if they go with a young cast... and say an actor under 25... when at the time Bale's character was still in training... that's not going to make very much sense... now maybe they'll cast someone older... we don't know. That's not to say that was probably the plan... because all reports were leaning to a younger cast of actors... and maybe they would have casted a 20 year old who looked like he was 35 or forty... that would make a bit more sense at least... but I just think it would be better if JLA was in its own universe by itself if it was made in 2010... if they waited after Nolan finished and still extended Batman's character from that franchise over into a JLA movie... then it wouldn't be so bad... I just don't understand why a few people, maybe not you, but why others are pushing hard for this movie to get done in the next year and a half.

 

[jmc]

And what does a $200 million film look like, pray tell? SMALLVILLE's effects don't even come close.

Something better than what Singer made. The entire Lord of the Rings trilogy was made for roughly $300 million, for all three films.

Sure, but you have to adjust for inflation.

I'm betting even with inflation adjusted, SR would still cost way more than the original.

Which was freaking amazing. There has never been anything like that even attempted in a live action movie, let alone so fantastically realized.

It was good, but it was the only action piece in the movie and it happened in the first half an hour.

"Not much happened"?

You've got Superman flying after and catching a plummeting airplane and a shuttle, pulling a yacht out of the ocean, undergoing a beating from Luthor and his goons, lifting a continent of Kryptonite, doing all that stuff in Metropolis and elsewhere in the world...

Wow, he lifted some stuff! With the CG effects at their disposal had they opportunity to really show the character go off, where was he punching bad guys into the sun or throwing semi trailers? We're was the action, where's the supervillain? Instead, he's just flying around and then gets beaten up by regular thugs, who the hell wants to see Superman in hospital? And how the hell do the doctors at Metropolis General know how to treat the guy? He's a freaking alien! The only good thing about he movie was Routh but they gave him like 12 lines of dialog in the film, he did sweet F-all.

Compare that to how much stuff Batman does in BATMAN BEGINS. It's about the same, I'd think.

Begins was an all round better film, better cast, better story, better action. WB had the chance to do something similar to Superman, something new, but instead choose to make a sort of sequel to a 20 year old franchise.

 

[Venom'sDad]

If WB were to make JL in the same time frame as Nolan's Batman, than they should just use Bale as Batman... otherwise it would be confusing and wouldn't feel right having two very different Wayne/Batman, in the same continuity.

 

[The Guard]

No, I don't think that one of the reasons they are rewriting Justice League is because of the connection with Nolan's franchise. People, the only connection even rumored is Talia having a beef with Batman over his dealings with her father. With her having an issue with vigilantes in general.

As for timeframe, I don't care WHEN this movie gets made, as long as it gets made. But if the ONLY sticking point is "Waiting for Nolan to get done", I find that absurd. That's a stupid, stupid reason to hold up a movie. It's not BATMAN AND THE JUSTICE LEAGUE, it's THE JUSTICE LEAGUE.

Something better than what Singer made. The entire Lord of the Rings trilogy was made for roughly $300 million, for all three films.

No. No it wasn't. That was it's starting budget. You don't even want to know how much extra money NEW LINE ponied up during post production for effects and then for reshoots.

I'm betting even with inflation adjusted, SR would still cost way more than the original.

I'm sure it would, but you have to adjust for inflation nevertheless. You can't just say "SUPERMAN RETURNS had a budget 20 times higher than SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE and expect to make that comparison valid". Because SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE was probably the most expensive movie ever made at the time.

It was good, but it was the only action piece in the movie and it happened in the first half an hour.

It wasn't the only action piece in the movie. And when you keep saying like this, you sound like a raving lunatic.

Wow, he lifted some stuff! With the CG effects at their disposal had they opportunity to really show the character go off, where was he punching bad guys into the sun or throwing semi trailers?

What the hell were you expecting, "Frank Miller presents Superman"? And btw, we've seen all that stuff before. I thought you wanted something new.

We're was the action, where's the supervillain?

The fundamental problem here is that you equate "action" with "people hitting other people". And in the context of Superman, that's just not the case. There are all kinds of action.

Instead, he's just flying around and then gets beaten up by regular thugs, who the hell wants to see Superman in hospital?

I never thought I'd see the day when people whined about Superman "just flying around". Who wants to see him in the hospital? People who care about his vulnerabilities. People who want some emotion from these characters.

And how the hell do the doctors at Metropolis General know how to treat the guy? He's a freaking alien!

A freaking alien with vaguely human appearance. You'll notice they couldn't treat him...they just sort of left him there.

Begins was an all round better film, better cast, better story, better action. WB had the chance to do something similar to Superman, something new, but instead choose to make a sort of sequel to a 20 year old franchise.

The last time WB attempted something new with Superman, fans *****ed till the cows came home.

Stay on topic, please. I was not comparing the quality of the movies, although it's debatable on some levels. Superman had about as much "action" as Batman did. Just different kinds. Because he is, of course, a different character.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Great points all around, Guard.

 

[The Major]

It just wasn't an issue with me. He lifted a plane, and then a yacht, and then a freaking continent. I mean, look at CASINO ROYALE. Nothing later on touched that early chase sequence, and it's still a pretty good movie.

James Bond was in much more convincing as being in danger then Superman. Being super-powerful means it's much harder for the GA to believe he's in danger.

Lex was fine using Krytonite once but now it's just repeated to much.

Movie Lex can only bring so much to the table. The threat needs to be at a higher level then a smart human with a crystal.

You've got Superman flying after and catching a plummeting airplane and a shuttle, pulling a yacht out of the ocean, undergoing a beating from Luthor and his goons, lifting a continent of Kryptonite, doing all that stuff in Metropolis and elsewhere in the world...

Which is boring because there's not as much drama in it as if he's in danger.

Humans in the films are easy to kill. Someone who can trounce Superman in a fight is much more terrifying.

Compare that to how much stuff Batman does in BATMAN BEGINS. It's about the same, I'd think.

JMC covered that for me.

We get it. You want to see him punching things. Because god knows THAT would take some incredible effects...

He is a super-hero. It's what they do.

He's in much more danger against an opponent who can mess him up physically then plot devices from human villains who won't stop bothering him.

This attitude is starting to chafe. This nonsensical "Superman didn't throw any punches so he must not have done anything super" thing.

Superman has more then his fists to use in a fight. Superman 2 proves it. Only he rarely encounters enemies who he has to physically stop.

The hero is measured by his villains. Lex is a fine villain, but that's not all he has in his rogues gallery.

It's boring to you, maybe. Superman saves lives. Does he get into fights a lot nowadays? Sure, but he's first and foremost about saving lives.

Sure he should do it. It just shouldn't be what he does most of the film.

Please. You did not see the things that happened in SUPERMAN RETURNS happen in SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE. And if you think you did, you are delusional. It's like whining that Batman beats up thugs in BATMAN BEGINS because he did it in BATMAN and each subsequent Batman movie.

Yes, there were changes.

Unfortunately SR was more interested in tying up loose ends from other films with Lex Luthor then moving on.

The problem here is that you seem to think that you have to have an entire movie to explain some rather simple concepts to people.

Thats why I don't like the idea of JL being so soon. They can only cover so much in 2 or 3 hours.

Then the movie can elaborate on the character. Simple.

True.

So...a JUSTICE LEAGUE movie can cover more about her.

That only works if they do a good job of it.

WB has yet to show it knows what potential WW or any of the other Leaguers have.

So make her origins part of the movie's exploration. This is not a difficult concept.

True.

I have never seen a sequence as cool as the falling plane in any animated series or Justice League episode.

In the Timm Superman series Superman is brainwashed into being a lackey of Darkseid who proceeds to use him as a general of an invasion force of earth.

Superman shows up on Earth all evil then unleashes an army of spaceships and an uncountable number of Parademons who all fly down on Metropolis armed forces.

That's just one episode.

They simply don't have the time or the budget to devote to something like that.

Then they can wait until technology is available to make it.

They could even try to make new techology for effects on other films to use later.

Ok...so because Lex has larger ambitions about real estate...it's somehow less chilling that he's having Superman beat to a pulp and stabbing him with Kryptonite?

Sad, yes. Chilling, no.

And that dynamic, Superman being powerless, is the entire point.

No-one goes to a see a Superman movie just to watch him be powerless and being beating up by ordinary thugs.

Most things aren't a threat to Superman? Isn't that kinda the point of having something threaten him later on?

There are things that can hurt or kill Superman. The movies have only shown krytonite, other Krytonians and a Nuclear idiot.

Magic can hurt him, beings with enough physical power can hurt him, technology can hurt him if it's strong enough even Earth made stuff, reality warpers can hurt him, telepathy can hurt him. The movies haven't even touched this.

You are deluding yourself if you think people didn't go see Superman because the mythos wasn't represented, or that the average person gives a piss about the Christopher Reeve Superman franchise.

I agree that Reeve's Superman wasn't what they wanted. Thats partially why it didn't do well.

The mythos from Reeve's Superman was presented. While it is part of the Superman mythos it isn't all of it.

We still haven't seen most of his enemies on screen, there is more to Kypton then the Phantom zone, the crystals and Kal-El's parents.

And how many of the general public actually know or care about any villain other than Lex? You're looking at this in fanboy terms, not in the way the public approaches a Superman movie.

The franchise is Superman, not Superman and Lex Luthor. He does have more enemies in his rogues gallery. They're not all classics, but they're not all losers either.

They had plenty of time.

Even if they had the same time as Singer they couldn't deliver as good material. We all know that.

With more time it would have given the crew at least more to use of higher quality, if they used it wisely to improve the movie, so it would have been a a slightly better turkey then it became.

Nothing could save it, of course. But it would have at made it that much more superior to what they gave us.

Oh really? Please. Be specific.

If they had more time they could have more time to work on everything from scripts to shooting to editing.

Rushing means they just got the most mediocre work all over production.

They should be doing that, but weren't. This is my point. The timing/schedule of the movie had little to do with the things that were actually wrong with it. The things that were wrong with it were going to be wrong with it regardless of whether or not they rushed the movie.

Agreed.

You obviously don't understand what I'm driving at. I'm not saying WB couldn't make these movies if they didn't want to. But they can't make them all in a short time frame.

You make it seem like it's impossible to solve.

They can't do it in this time frame? Then wait until the movies are made in a few years time then start making JL.

The properties aren't going anywhere.

I'm sure WB wants to cash in on Nolan's Batman with JL. That's most likely why they want to make it so quickly.

What they fail to realise is that they shot themselves in the foot by not making other solo JL films before making JL.

Deciding at the last minute to do JL when they haven't gotten all their ducks in a row is poor planning.

Rushing JL into production just for because they want to cash in on Nolan's Batman is asking for trouble. They lost their chance.

JL is a movie where rushing is the last thing they should do. It's on a much bigger scope with multiple franchise characters on the line. That requires more planning to get right. Hoping for the best, not doing everything possible to be faithful to the franchise/s, little credibility that they'll give JL the respect it deserves and no evidence they have any idea how to make any good films from either of the lesser properties let alone a franchise with several in them is a an for disaster. Under the best circumstances they sure won't be making as much money back as they would if they had planned ahead and delivered a product that was the absolute best of their abilities.

WB has to devote money to making other kinds of movies, because it is not just a comic book movie studio, it's a movie studio, period.

True.

If you run a restaurant, you cannot just make one dish and hope to succeed, because some people won't like that dish or that kind of dish, they'll want something else.

True.

No, that's your assumption. And read half the JLA comics ever written. The less popular characters aren't generally explored that deeply to begin with.

They are if the comic is where they only appear in. Take Vision from Avengers. He has no solo series so he gets more to do in the team book because he'd get it nowhere else. J'onn's role is similar in the JLA when he doesn't have an his own title.

There are entire runs of less popular Leaguers. The Justice League International series just had D-list and below Leaguers. Ironically, this comic is also when Max Lord was a member of the League.

The only X-men who has a solo title is Wolverine. The rest are all tied to franchise as a team.

So what? Does the fact that the X-Men don't all have solo titles have a thing to do with whether the basics of them can be shown in a team up movie? No, and neither does it have any bearing on the concepts for the JLA members.

Yes. The X-men franchise were always intended to be a team. JL is about several characters who have their own franchises joining together.

Most of the JL team members will be introduced to the GA with this. No mtter what happens the GA will view these versions as the defacto ones. If they're given terrible treatment the GA won't care about them much at all.

WW is being reintroduced. Thanks to her not getting a solo movie this is what her franchise counts on to show the pubic why they should want to see movies with her in it until then. If JL is great but the version the movie shows is joke the GA won't be showing up to her solo film because they'll be expecting a loser character with no potential. Thats why she, and the other lesser characters, need a WB to deliver the best versions in JL. That's even assuming they get WW right if they ever do make a solo film of her.

Here's the thing some of you don't seem to grasp. You seem to want the impossible,

WB chose to make JL. No-one forced them to do it.

If they don't want the pressure that the franchise deserves they can shut it down until they can do it justice.

Just because a franchise is popular doesn't mean its going to be easy money. It also means there is more on the line when they produce it.

and then you ***** when it doesn't happen.

That's the price of making an iconic franchise. If people get any hint of it sucking they'll be extremely disappointed or angry at it being treated badly.

 

[The Major]

You seem to want JUSTICE LEAGUE to introduce the world to EVERYTHING IMPORTANT about EACH character somehow. In one movie. And that's just an unrealistic expectation on every level. But the basics behind each character can easily be covered. And that's all a JLA movie should need to do. Because JLA isn't about the details of how John Stewart got the power ring, or John Stewart training with the Corps, it's about how John Stewart interacts with the Justice League, and how they interact with him.

You're right.

The entire point of bringing these heroes together is not to show each of their origins or where they happen live. That's what solo movies are for. But that's not to say that JUSTICE LEAGUE can't hint/show those elements. It need not spend a lot of time there for those elements to have an impact.

It can hint. Not problem with that.

You still haven't answered my initial question? How is THE JUSTICE LEAGUE somehow more of a risk than X-MEN was?

It risks several franchises at once. WW, GL, Aquaman, Flash and whoever else they put on it along with the JL franchise itself. The only ones who won't be that hurt are Batman and Superman.

How the characters are portrayed will affect how they are viewed by the GA from then on.


They'll have a harder time taking a solo WW seriously, even if it was great, if she acts like useless eye candy in JL. It's bad enough most people think Lynda Carter is the limit of her potential.

X-men getting solo spin-offs was a benefit to its success, not inevitable unlike JL.

They're primarily a team first then individuals, while JL are individuals first then a team.

No, it didn't. It sidelined it for about three years, tops. It took seven years for the next Batman movie to actually appear (BATMAN BEGINS, remember, was in the works from late 2003 on, and YEAR ONE was being developed/considered for several years before that), but WB quickly got back into wanting to make Batman movies again after BATMAN & ROBIN. Just because BATMAN BEGINS came out in 2005 doesn't mean BATMAN & ROBIN made WB abandon all plans/desire to make Batman movies during that timeframe.

Okay.

WB abandoned WONDER WOMAN because Joel Silver abandoned Wonder Woman, not just to make JUSTICE LEAGUE.

If he's abandoned WW has he let someone else take over the franchise?

And listen to yourself: "All Flash had had is a live action TV show"? Oh, is that it? You apparently ignored the four seasons of JUSTICE LEAGUE animated.[/quote]

The tv show is the only thing he's had alone. He was sharing screen time with many other characters on the cartoon.

Barely. Since Talia wasn't even mentioned in BATMAN BEGINS, it's a vague tie at best. And since fans are crying about how things will fit together, wouldn't fitting things together be a good idea?

A vague tie is still a tie.

I'm not that worried about the idea of it fitting together. I'm worried that they'll do it badly. Execution is everything.

It also makes the movie about him. He's had how many movies already? The only other team member who has movies is Superman the rest have zilch. Talia would only chew up screen time for Batman. If WB wants Batman to encounter Talia they can do it in one of his own movies.

I'm sorry...I'd forgotten you had read the script. Please, elaborate on how they will characterize Batman in JUSTICE LEAGUE. And be detailed.

I'm going by the rumors, of course.

Others have already talked about the subject in other threads.

A realistic Batman will be a much tougher sell to hurting people or devices that can hurt beings like Wonder Woman. if they use Nolan's Batman they say it takes place a few years later from begins because there's no way that Batman would have anything in his arsenal to hurt a major threat like Brainiac, the Star Conquerer etc.

It's just to early in his career as a crime fighter. If they can convincingly do that I'll be very impressed.

It's called "suspension of disbelief". It does exist, and people can use it. They don't just forget it in order to pull apart a work of fantasy adventure.

They do it all the time. On message boards, talking to friends etc.

Suspension of disbelief is much harder to pull off in live action then comics or novels.

It's much more obvious in the medium for some reason.

"But...but why isn't the highly trained martial artist who isn't even encountering the OMACs himself and is mostly behind the scenes or in his high tech jet dying?"

Okay, that works.

How so? The core of the character was there. I'd love to cry about he wasn't "F this" and "F that" and "I'm gonna bang me a hooker", but I just can't.

An R-rating doesn't mean DD has to swear. Funny visual, though. lol

DD's world was much to light for the character. It should have been much more gritty and depressing like Begins.

The action wasn't the best, either. DD's much more vicious in the comics. He holds back but not as much as movie DD did.

Bullseye was okay. problem is he came across more of a gimmick then in the comics. He was to funny not serious.

Kingpin was a much better. Only the final fight scene the wire work wasn't that good. The scene where Fisk throws DD into the wall while he spins a bit in the air comes off as obvious wire work, not realistic.

They should have saved Elektra for the sequel. Garner was fine but they had to seriously change water her personality down for it. I'm glad they made her more brutal in her own movie. If he had to have a love interest they could have used Karen Page.

Affleck was okay, but he didn't sell Murdock entirely. He made Matt to upbeat. I didn't buy that he was in pain from his father's death or that depressed. A shame. I thought he'd have done better.

Elaborate. Which movies have these directors made that look like they cost ten times their budget?

Joss Whedon.

Robert Rodriguez makes pretty straightforward stuff,

He does more then most directors on his films. He often creates the music, for example.

He may make more straight forward material but he does it well.

He was able to get an all star cast by creativity selling it not purely on other actors participation but on the property itself. How many directors in Hollywood can say that? How many have that passion for their work?

and last time I checked, LORD OF THE RINGS wasn't on a shoestring budget. In fact, New Line had to give Jackson more money as the project wore on. Neither were any of the SPIDER-MAN movies anything close to cheap.

They weren't cheap but they all had great quality, brilliant casting, good scripts (Spiderman 3 didn't need to add venom but it still was a decent effort), directors who knew the franchises inside and out, directors who had passion for the material to make it the best it could be instead of making crap then wanting applause for it and the GA who loved it to pieces.

I would question where his budget WENT with SPIDER-MAN 3.

The budget was much more visible then SR. The special effects, especially the fight scenes were insane. They were unpredictable yet still flowed flawlessly. Spiderman was getting messed up big time all through the movie.

Superman moaned a bit while the dagger was in him and hit by thugs while having no power. For a super-hero he sure is a crappy fighter when the chips are down.

Hell, even DARKMAN cost $16 million to make, and certainly didn't look much like it.

I'll take your word for it. haven't seen it in years.

Go look at the last few superhero movies (that weren't about the Matrix) made about characters the public barely knows. Look at how much money they made overall. It is not as simple as "Here's a cool movie". You have got to have something to sell it on, and recognizability is part of that equation.

Yes, something the public recognises helps. But it isn't the only thing that matters.

These people know how layered film-making is why don't they see the whole picture?

What if the one element they count on backfires? Do they actually try to find out why it didn't work? Do they try to avoid making the same mistake again? Do they have back-up plans in case of a worst case scenario?

Selling is only half the battle. They may see it once. If the movie is terrible, which elements that could have been avoided if caught early on, they not only won't see it again but they'll tell anyone within hearing distance how much it sucks. They just lost more customers and more money from that person because they were to busy doing something else then making a good movie.

Superman being boring is your opinion. And the only time Batman was a joke was in BATMAN & ROBIN. Before that, the franchise was making big money.

It was making big money until WB got more interested in toy merchandise, giving Batman nipples and allowing Schumacker to basically do his own version of Adam West's Batman.

Why the 180 shift? Batman being serious was making them money. Why did they think turning Batman into a clown would have the same effect? It's the exact opposite of what was going right.

How was HELLBOY done any "smarter" than SUPERMAN RETURNS? It was a creature action movie with a semblance of plot.

Did you watch it?

Not every super-hero movie is costumed athletes hitting each other. It has many sub-genres. Sci-fi, fantasy, mystery, space opera and more.

Hellboy isn't meant to be that deep but the amount of effort that went into the special effects and making the characters work was incredible. The villains were all unique, frightening and posed a threat. Hellboy and his comrades were likable, logically clashed and were fearsome.

It was all in the execution.

Superman Returns was to bogged down by its own past that it forgot to move forward. Superman having a son is more of a WTF? moment then genuine character development.

Luthor was more competent which was good. He was still old news. I was much more convinced Earth was in danger with Rasputin awakening then Elder Gods then Luthor unleashing New Kryton. We saw land schemes the first time. How about something new? Singer didn't even give him Krytonian tech once the island was growing. He'd be much more imposing with some Krytonian plot devices then a band of non name thugs and a Krytonite knife.

Yes, maybe. I didn't say "maybe The Dark Knight will be a hit", I said "Maybe IF The Dark Knight is an enormous hit", meaning "WB might see fit to put more DC properties into production.

Agreed.

I don't what I can tell you in terms of WB not being uber faithful to the comic material. BATMAN BEGINS wasn't, either, and I don't expect THE DARK KNIGHT to be.

Begins was more faithful too the franchise then previous attempts. Like X-men, except for 3, it only changed things as a last resort not because the people in charge wanted X in it because it would "look cool".

It wasn't a direct adaption of Year One but it introduced new elements previous movies weren't interested in covering i.e. making Batman/Bruce Wayne interesting and relatable, showing how he got his training, established why he wanted to become Batman much better then Burton ever did, was much more up to date with the comics (Batman isn't a killer anymore. Hasn't been for decades.), gave Alfred a personality etc.

I mean, you can go on and on about "I hope they learn from their mistakes, but I'm worried", and "WB needs to hire people with respect for these properties", and it's just not going to make one iota of difference.

Yes, I'm worried. Why should I trust that they'll get any character in JL right when they continually produce garbage instead of respecting their franchises which aren't Superman or Batman?


WB has given the fans little reason to believe them.

Which is a shame since it seems like fans know their own characters better then they do. I'm talking about execs mostly but it does happen with a lot of actors, directors, writers etc.

WB has been sitting on hundreds of properties of DC's that could make them much more money if they respect them and give them to people who actually know what they're doing with it.

And they wonder why Marvel movies are doing better. Sure, they fail most of the time but they are actually trying. They show a lot more respect for their own properties then WB has for theirs.

You know why? Because they have more people who actually know and care about their franchises.

Hiring a big shot writer/director/actor who is more interested in a paycheck then getting people who respect it always blows up in their faces.

Occasionally directors etc who come in blank get it right i.e. Nolan, Singer (X-men, Superman to a lesser degree) Riami, del Toro etc but it's putting an awful lot on the line because they're more interested in appealing to the lowest common denominator then making good films.

Just because a director etc is a fan doesn't always work, of course. That just means the studios must be more critical in hiring them. Why is this such a problem? Is it that they don't care or are totally clueless about the property they're making? Both?

Del Toro's Hellboy being a hit wasn't an accident. His track record, passion and talent all fit it perfectly. He wanted to make a good movie and be faithful. And he did it.

Nolan's Batman was a huge success. It was a movie fans and GA loved. It was incredibly faithful and respectful.

Now WB is ignoring all that progress for a crappy JL movie? Are they insane?

A quality JL would make them ten times or more a crappy JL movie would.

But they'd rather do it the easy way. This is their industry. They chose this field. They should know what they are doing. Not missing the obvious.

Why the sudden interest in JL anyway? Is it because of the Justice League cartoon? The immensely successful JL cartoon who was respectful to its characters?

Whoever is in charge of JL should watch the entire show from start to end and pay attention to how JL is done right. Learn about the characters, what would work on film what wouldn't, consult the creators etc.

Read some JLA comics. Ask DC for specific runs for specific characters whether it be solo titles or team books and read them to read he characters at their best. Do the same thing.

Sure this will take time. But this project is what they want to do. If they don't want to bother researching they should be replaced by someone who will.

Otherwise they're wasting everybody's time. Sure it might be successful but it wouldn't be anywhere near as successful if they actually had any idea of how to execute the project.

Fans will be pissed off, the media will make fun of their properties instead of praising them, it will be obvious to everybody they're more interested in making money then producing good movies, that they have even less of a clue in how to execute DC properties then originally thought and they'd be less richer then if they delivered actual good material.

We all know what SHOULD be done.

No. What should be done?

Recommended Post-Crisis runs: Marv Wolfman & George Perez/Geoff Johns' Teen Titans, Grant Morrison JLA (roster included Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, Green Lantern [Kyle Rayner], the Flash [Wally West], Aquaman, Martian Manhunter), George Perez/Gail Simone/Greg Rucka Wonder Woman, Geoff Johns' Green Lantern (Hal Jordan), Geoff Johns JSA/Justice Society, (Pre-Crisis) Paul Levitz/(Post-Crisis) Dan Abnett & Andy Lanning/Mark Waid/Gail Simone Legion of Super-Heroes, Gail Simone Birds of Prey (roster: Oracle, the Huntress, Black Canary, Misfit, Big Barda, Lady Blackhawk, Manhunter [Kate Spencer]), Geoff Johns/Mark Waid (The Flash [Wally West]), Ron Marz Green Lantern (Kyle Rayner), Greg Rucka Checkmate, Grant Morrison/Chuck Dixon/Paul Dini Batman titles, Marv Wolfman/John Byrne Superman titles (reprinted in Superman: Man of Steel TPB series), Ed Brubaker/Will Phieffer Catwoman, Chuck Dixon Nightwing, Dennis O'Neill The Question, Mark Miller/Scott McCloud Superman Adventures, Kelly Puckett/Andersen Gabrych Batgirl (Cassandra Cain)