Favreau/Marvel takes a little jab at WB/JLA

[Hole Shot]

the thread starter is inciting controversy where it's not applicable

This is a JLA forum correct? Favreau and Marvel openly criticize JLA's production. I think it has merit and I do agree with Favreau's point.

And what's wrong with controversy and debate anyway? That's exactly why we're here. Not too flame eachother, but there's more to learn by disagreeing than everybody sharing the same point of view.

 

[I Am The Knight]

This is a JLA forum correct? Favreau and Marvel openly criticize JLA's production. I think it has merit and I do agree with Favreau's point.

And what's wrong with controversy and debate anyway? That's exactly why we're here. Not too flame eachother, but there's more to learn by disagreeing than everybody sharing the same point of view.

I don't think they are "criticizing" JLA. At least not in a negative way. He's merely stating the difference between Marvel's approach to the Avengers vs. WB's approach to Justice League.

 

[TheVileOne]

Which is because WB's approach makes no sense and is rather ridiculous.

 

[Mister Sinister]

I'm with Favreau on this. It's not fair to the fans to have to follow so many continuities. When the Avengers happens, I want it to be with RDJ, Ed Norton and Sam Jackson. For Batman, Superman, possibly the Flash, Green Lantern and Wonder Woman, they're going to add another thread for fans to follow, they should have attempted to get Bale and Routh to play Batman and Superman to interlink everything instead of creating some weird alternate universe where superheroes are all in their early 20s.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

I don't think Favreau was necessarily insulting the WB, but this does show that he has a better understanding of the material.

The Avengers, and moreso the JLA, are All-Star teams of established heroes. Earth's greatest heroes. It's supposed to be big and grand. The audience is supposed to see people they're familiar with. The concept doesn't work with "younger" actors playing the roles.

It's just unimaginably stupid for the WB to put out a competing version of Batman, while an incredibly successful new version of, widely credited with restoring the character's good name, is running at the same time.

 

[Dotten]

Which is because WB's approach makes no sense and is rather ridiculous.

It makes a lot more sense in terms of logistic. A lot more sense then what Marvel is doing. Don't misunderstand me, I would love a Justice League with top-notch actors and to use the cast from Superman Returns and Batman Begins. But it's not a ridiculous aproach and one is asking for trouble.

For Marvel, all that needs to happen for everything to go to hell is for Sam Jackson, Downey Jr, Ed Norton or the guys that will play Ant-Man, Thor and Captain America in solo-movies to say no, be commited to other movies or to ask for to much money.

Marvel is playing it very risky, with really high stakes. They are going all-in and the cards they have is not top-notch. I really hope they succeed, but their aproach is not one that makes big sense.

WB is doing it a lot easier for themselves. They can cast actors that have free timeslot and not asks for too much money. Marvel can not do that, they must find a timeslot where all the cast is free to do it. And they need the money to pay their stars.

WB is playing it safe, Marvel is not. But if Marvel succeds they get a bigger win, but the odds for a Marvel movie is much smaller then the odds for a Justice League movie.

But I hope we get both movies, I really do. But the point is, what WB is doing is making a lot more sense.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

WB isn't playing it safe at all.

If Justice League flops, or merely disappoints financially (the way Superman Returns did), then the WB will have pissed away its ENTIRE stable of superhero franchises.

The budget for Justice League is going to be absolutely monster, if they plan on 7 heroes (and even more superpowered characters including villains) and huge CGI battles.

Do you know what an actual "safe" route for the WB would be? Make a Flash solo film. Or Green Lantern. Not solely because you want to get them into a Justice League movie that may or may not happen. Just to make a solo superhero film. If it disappoints, the WB will be okay because it will still have all its other superhero franchises.

The WB can recover from an unsuccessful Flash, Green Lantern, or even Wonder Woman movie. I SERIOUSLY doubt that they can recover if Justice League bombs and is panned by critics and fans alike, something which is very possible if all the rumors surrounding this project have any validity.

It's better not to do a movie at all, than to rush it out unnecessarily and just ruin everything.

 

[Dotten]

WB isn't playing it safe at all.

If Justice League flops, or merely disappoints financially (the way Superman Returns did), then the WB will have pissed away its ENTIRE stable of superhero franchises.

The budget for Justice League is going to be absolutely monster, if they plan on 7 heroes (and even more superpowered characters including villains) and huge CGI battles.

Do you know what an actual "safe" route for the WB would be? Make a Flash solo film. Or Green Lantern. Not solely because you want to get them into a Justice League movie that may or may not happen. Just to make a solo superhero film. If it disappoints, the WB will be okay because it will still have all its other superhero franchises.

The WB can recover from an unsuccessful Flash, Green Lantern, or even Wonder Woman movie. I SERIOUSLY doubt that they can recover if Justice League bombs and is panned by critics and fans alike, something which is very possible if all the rumors surrounding this project have any validity.

It's better not to do a movie at all, than to rush it out unnecessarily and just ruin everything.

Did you read anything I said? If WB made solo-movies first (much bigger investments) then they lay the Justice League in the hands of the actors of the solo-movies. The budget for Justice League would be much bigger and one no from an actor would mess things up. Thats not safe.

By making Justice League first, the movie is cheaper and there is no risk concerning actors getting second thoughts.

If one of the Marvel-actors says no, then there will be no Avenger movie. Do you get that? Thats a risk WB need not worry about. So their hands are not tied in any way. They can screw it up by casting the wrong people (like it looks to me like they are doing), but that does not change the fact that the tactics of WB is much more safer then the tactics of Marvel.

If WB really wants a JL movie then they are asking for trouble if they are to make solo-movies first. Then the odds for JL ever happening will be lower. I'd rather have them try and fail then not try at all. Only cowards never ask the girl of their dreams for a date, because they are afraid that they will get a no or the date will end in disaster. Only cowards go around and think "what if" about choices they made.

WB an Marvel are not cowards. They are now trying. But Marvel has a much more complex way of asking the girl out

 

[I Am The Knight]

I'm with Favreau on this. It's not fair to the fans to have to follow so many continuities. When the Avengers happens, I want it to be with RDJ, Ed Norton and Sam Jackson. For Batman, Superman, possibly the Flash, Green Lantern and Wonder Woman, they're going to add another thread for fans to follow, they should have attempted to get Bale and Routh to play Batman and Superman to interlink everything instead of creating some weird alternate universe where superheroes are all in their early 20s.

You mean unlike the comics on wich these movies are based, right?

 

[Matt]

How is that a shot at Warners or JLA? He is simply stating what Marvel's plan is. Just because it is different from Warners doesn't mean he is taking a shot at them

 

[Riven]

How is that a shot at Warners or JLA? He is simply stating what Marvel's plan is. Just because it is different from Warners doesn't mean he is taking a shot at them

Because in the conflict-obsessed mind of many fans, there can be no neutral statements, only antagonism and willful controversy.

It's DC VERSUS Marvel, it's Avengers VERSUS JLA, it's Favreau VERSUS Warner Bros. It's always "us" VERSUS "them".

Whatever his intentions (though I seriously doubt a guy like Favreau would be that childish and unprofessional), I commend him for wanting to stick to a good plan like this. If you have two or more concurrent movies with characters that have featured in the same fictional work before, it makes perfect sense to want to cast the exhisting actors.

 

[Wally West]

I don't know what the big mystery is here. How can people scream over and over 'what is WB thinking', "why are they so stupid", "this doesn't make sense"?

It's very simple. Read this slowly and try to follow along. They planed on doing solo films first. Superman Returns WAS A FAILURE. It ****ed up thier plan in a major way. Then Bale turned down JLA. It's not like they're sitting around thinking "the fans are right, we should have tried solo films first then put it all together in JLA" - THAT WAS THE PLAN, it didn't work. Now here we are. Read that again if it still doesn't make sense.

People keep crying "Wb is so stupid", "the movie is gonna be a train wreck no matter what" like children who found out they aren't getting what they wanted for christmas so they don't even want to open thier other gifts. That's obviously a very strong arguement for the solo-films-first aproach, it's definately what the fans want...The problem is it's hard to bank on the success of multiple franchises headed by different directors and then pull it all together for a new franchise.

What happened at WB is EXACTLY why an Avengers movie with the plan they have could easily fall apart or take shape much differently. I hope Marvel accomplishes it, but if you want to see Avengers happen the way JL didn't, you had better get out and buy tickets to Iron Man, and Hulk and see them multiple times, because they are going to have to be very successful for an avengers film like that to happen.

 

[KBX]

^^ You sir, need to post more often!

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I don't know what the big mystery is here. How can people scream over and over 'what is WB thinking', "why are they so stupid", "this doesn't make sense"?

It's very simple. Read this slowly and try to follow along. They planed on doing solo films first. Superman Returns WAS A FAILURE. It ****ed up thier plan in a major way. Then Bale turned down JLA. It's not like they're sitting around thinking "the fans are right, we should have tried solo films first then put it all together in JLA" - THAT WAS THE PLAN, it didn't work. Now here we are. Read that again if it still doesn't make sense.

People keep crying "Wb is so stupid", "the movie is gonna be a train wreck no matter what" like children who found out they aren't getting what they wanted for christmas so they don't even want to open thier other gifts. That's obviously a very strong arguement for the solo-films-first aproach, it's definately what the fans want...The problem is it's hard to bank on the success of multiple franchises headed by different directors and then pull it all together for a new franchise.

What happened at WB is EXACTLY why an Avengers movie with the plan they have could easily fall apart or take shape much differently. I hope Marvel accomplishes it, but if you want to see Avengers happen the way JL didn't, you had better get out and buy tickets to Iron Man, and Hulk and see them multiple times, because they are going to have to be very successful for an avengers film like that to happen.

And why did Bale turn down JLA?!? Because he is in the middle of another franchise right now!! You don't make a teamup movie when you are in the middle of another franchise. And WB panicked with SR. Of course that movie "failed". What the hell do you expect from a "superhero" movie that just features the hero lifting things with a Maury Povich who's your daddy storyline. So yea, WB is stupid for greenlighting that POS and having ridiculous expectations for it. And they are stupid for apparently abandoning the Superman solo franchise so quickly.

WB exec - "Well, hell, if a solo Superman movie can't break the bank for us then screw another solo superhero movie first. Lets just go straight to the teamup". (Not a real quote btw)

But damn. They need to think of releasing a solo Superman movie first that actually kicks ass and has a compelling storyline. People will then show up, repeatedly, I guarantee you. They gave up to easy all because of a lame storyline for a lame movie. They should have known better. So yea, WB is stupid.

 

[DieSmiling]

That's not a shot at DC. It's just how it is.

 

[Triple Skeet]

It amazes me how many people JUST DONT GET IT.

Your NOT going to see Ed Norton and Samuel L. Jackson in an Avengers movie. And unless they start casting unknown actors for Thor and Ant Man, your not gonna see them either. Its too much money.

XMen did it right. They got their big cast starting with a star (Storm), some unkowns (Wolverine, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Rogue) and a couple of old timers (Professor X, Magneto) and locked them into 3 picture deals.

You guys really dont get it. Your not gonna see an all star cast making The Avengers in 5-10 years. Favreus either delusional, or just taking the oppurtunity to throw a shot at DC.

 

[Wally West]

And why did Bale turn down JLA?!? Because he is in the middle of another franchise right now!! You don't make a teamup movie when you are in the middle of another franchise. And WB panicked with SR. Of course that movie "failed". What the hell do you expect from a "superhero" movie that just features the hero lifting things with a Maury Povich who's your daddy storyline. So yea, WB is stupid for greenlighting that POS and having ridiculous expectations for it. And they are stupid for apparently abandoning the Superman solo franchise so quickly.

WB exec - "Well, hell, if a solo Superman movie can't break the bank for us then screw another solo superhero movie first. Lets just go straight to the teamup". (Not a real quote btw)

But damn. They need to think of releasing a solo Superman movie first that actually kicks ass and has a compelling storyline. People will then show up, repeatedly, I guarantee you. They gave up to easy all because of a lame storyline for a lame movie. They should have known better. So yea, WB is stupid.

I agree with you 100% that SR shouldn't have gone forward with the child of superman storyline and the lack of a super powered fight scene. The studio and singer obviously over-estimated the sentimentality the fans had for the donner franchise thinking that tying into the beloved Christopher Reeve's films and staying true to thier feel would translate into sure fire profits.

I don't think WB knows how to do another Singer/donner film at this point because the child and love triangle painted the story into a tight corner. And if you start Superman over again to desperately do the solo films first no matter what - how many times do you try it over again when you have a property like JLA sitting on the shelf?

And assuming you do get a decent superman franchise off the ground, there is no guarantee that Bale would have agreed to do JLA even then, or at least not without asking for an ungodly sum of money after finishing Nolan's trilogy (after three turns as Batman he would probably want some added incentive, and I've seen nothing to indicate at all that he was ever particularly passionate about playing Batman in a film like JLA in the first place, only that he wasn't AGAINST the idea of a Superman/Batman team up, but I've never read anything where he talks about his love of other DC characters or a desire to be part of a comic ensemble film once he is finished with the Batman films, only that he hadn't ruled it out - that hardly = enthusiasm in my book, yet people act like it's a foregone conclussion that if JLA happened in 2012 or 2013 Bale would most certainly be a part of it. That's quite a stretch).

 

[Dotten]

And why did Bale turn down JLA?!? Because he is in the middle of another franchise right now!!

Thing is, Nolan never planned to make a sequel to Batman Begins. And it's not like he is set on making a sequel to The Dark Knight. That's not how the man works, as he also has stated. WB wants him to make a number 3, but it's not like he said "I'm going to make 3 movies". In fact, he has said he never even intended to make The Dark Knight. Nolan never plans so far into the future.

WB tried but failed and it could easily end up with Marvel failing too. But I hope they succeed, I really do.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

And assuming you do get a decent superman franchise off the ground, there is no guarantee that Bale would have agreed to do JLA even then, or at least not without asking for an ungodly sum of money after finishing Nolan's trilogy (after three turns as Batman he would probably want some added incentive, and I've seen nothing to indicate at all that he was ever particularly passionate about playing Batman in a film like JLA in the first place, only that he wasn't AGAINST the idea of a Superman/Batman team up, but I've never read anything where he talks about his love of other DC characters or a desire to be part of a comic ensemble film once he is finished with the Batman films, only that he hadn't ruled it out - that hardly = enthusiasm in my book, yet people act like it's a foregone conclussion that if JLA happened in 2012 or 2013 Bale would most certainly be a part of it. That's quite a stretch).

That's fair. There was definitely no guarantee that Bale would do JLA even after 3 Batman movies. I would have still liked to have seen WB give a legitimate shot though at a Flash movie first, or GL or WW. I think in the right hands those films could have been successful on their own without the need of a JLA film first. I just think WB has this mentality now that if SR didn't succeed greatly then what superhero can(outside of Batman which didn't exactly tear up the BO either). But that mentality is flawed only because SR was so lame. Had SR delivered on action, updated Lex, have a supervillain, etc.. then it would have succeeded.

Plus, I just can't get past how silly it seems to have two live action Batmen and perhaps Supermen at the same time. Not that I think Bale or Routh are the only people in the world that can play their characters. Just would have been nice to at least have them finish out their characters before someone else steps in.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Thing is, Nolan never planned to make a sequel to Batman Begins. And it's not like he is set on making a sequel to The Dark Knight. That's not how the man works, as he also has stated. WB wants him to make a number 3, but it's not like he said "I'm going to make 3 movies". In fact, he has said he never even intended to make The Dark Knight. Nolan never plans so far into the future.

WB tried but failed and it could easily end up with Marvel failing too. But I hope they succeed, I really do.

I know Nolan said that but he was working off of treatment that Goyer wrote which proposed a 3 film arc. I find it hard to believe he never gave any thought to a sequel as he claims.

 

[Wally West]

That's fair. There was definitely no guarantee that Bale would do JLA even after 3 Batman movies. I would have still liked to have seen WB give a legitimate shot though at a Flash movie first, or GL or WW. I think in the right hands those films could have been successful on their own without the need of a JLA film first. I just think WB has this mentality now that if SR didn't succeed greatly then what superhero can(outside of Batman which didn't exactly tear up the BO either). But that mentality is flawed only because SR was so lame. Had SR delivered on action, updated Lex, have a supervillain, etc.. then it would have succeeded.

Plus, I just can't get past how silly it seems to have two live action Batmen and perhaps Supermen at the same time. Not that I think Bale or Routh are the only people in the world that can play their characters. Just would have been nice to at least have them finish out their characters before someone else steps in.

I hear ya man. Don't get me wrong at all. This isn't how I wanted things to turn out. I'm all about solo films first leading to an epic crossover. I can see how it eventually fell apart though, and why they're going in the direction they are now. I'm definately not saying this is a dream scenerio, but it's the best we're going to get.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

Did you read anything I said? If WB made solo-movies first (much bigger investments) then they lay the Justice League in the hands of the actors of the solo-movies. The budget for Justice League would be much bigger and one no from an actor would mess things up. Thats not safe.

No, you didn't read what I said. My point is to screw the rushed idea that a Justice League movie "needs" to be made now or in the forseeable future. If the WB has gone on for decades without a Justice League film, than it can go several more years without knocking one out. Just make solo movies, not as a lead-in to an already greenlit Justice League film, but as solo movies. It's better not to make a movie at all, than to force out a bad one.

If WB really wants a JL movie then they are asking for trouble if they are to make solo-movies first.

They're already asking for trouble, because if Justice League turns out to be their next Superman Returns (or god forbid CINO), then ALL of their potential superhero franchises will be lost.

Then the odds for JL ever happening will be lower. I'd rather have them try and fail then not try at all. Only cowards never ask the girl of their dreams for a date, because they are afraid that they will get a no or the date will end in disaster. Only cowards go around and think "what if" about choices they made.

That's certainly a positive way to spin things. I could just as easily say that only selfish suits try to force out a movie without the necessary context, and little to no apparent artistic vision (if all these horrible rumors have any truth to them).

 

[ClarkLuther55]

It amazes me how many people JUST DONT GET IT.

Your NOT going to see Ed Norton and Samuel L. Jackson in an Avengers movie. And unless they start casting unknown actors for Thor and Ant Man, your not gonna see them either. Its too much money.

XMen did it right. They got their big cast starting with a star (Storm), some unkowns (Wolverine, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Rogue) and a couple of old timers (Professor X, Magneto) and locked them into 3 picture deals.

You guys really dont get it. Your not gonna see an all star cast making The Avengers in 5-10 years. Favreus either delusional, or just taking the oppurtunity to throw a shot at DC.

You don't get it either.

Justice League is NOT X-Men. The concepts behind these teams isn't even close. X-Men is a team where all the members were introduced as part of the team. They have a single common explanation for their powers, and a shared goal.

Justice League is supposed to be a gathering of established solo stars. And yes, actually making a movie that does that idea justice is hard. But I'm perfectly fine with having no Justice League movie at all if it can't be done right. I've gone my whole life without such a movie, and I'm not going to exactly die if I don't see one rushed out by next year.

 

[dnno1]

Actually the Justice League is more of a team of recognizable DC superheros. It is not necessarily the case that they be comprised of established solo stars. The original concept (The Justice Society of America) was set up to be a team of heroes who didn't have their own title back in the day. As far as actors being set in the roles, it should never be the case where the actor makes the character. People should be going to see the character, not the actor. If you have to rely on the actor to get the crowd to see the film, you either have an unpopular character, or a bad story to begin with.

 

[BobJM]

This is how I see it...

2008
-IM
-TIH

2009
-Thor

2010
-CA
-Ant-Man (possibly, if Marvel is truly inclined to)

2011
- Avengers (Marvel should cast a low-key actor for CA who can film back-to-back films)

If there's only one Avengers, I'm fine with that. Continue the characters story with their solo franchises and focus on the fall out events stemming from the Avengers film. However, if there is going to be a second Avengers film, film it after the Avengers and save solo films for afterwards if necessary.