• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Justice League How about a CGI animated movie?

GremlinZilla89

Sidekick
Joined
Dec 16, 2012
Messages
1,418
Reaction score
1
Points
31
I can already see the negative responses, but hear me out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Nf-m6WGl4


It would be awesome to see something like this in theaters. Take the animation up a few notches and you got yourself a badass theatrical movie.

Hire a team of competent writers, get some ace voice talent and you got yourself a good chance to make a great Justice League movie. Can you imagine the imagery and action if they made an animated League film? It would be off the scale awesome.
 
Terrible idea.

DC animated universe is the place for things like that.
 
Terrible idea.

DC animated universe is the place for things like that.

What's so terrible about it? if the animation is on par with Dreamworks or Pixar, if its rated PG-13, 2hrs, a good cast and good writers what would be so bad about it? it would be slightly cheaper to make too.
 
A live JL movie would run rings around an animated movie.
 
A live JL movie would run rings around an animated movie.

It very well could, but I feel there is an inherent cliff to climb when trying to adapt the DC characters as opposed to the Marvel characters. The DC heroes are more mythical in scope and themes and not as easily relatable (accept Bats). To really do a Justice League ugh, well...justice you have to be grand as well as intimate. A mature, well written Justice League movie could work as an animation just fine if they treat it like a live action film.

I think people have a block when it comes to animation. They automatically associate it with family/child stuff. Make the character models realistic and proportional to real life and write the hell out it. It could rock.
 
^ sigh....

The good old "DC characters are harder to adapt" argument that hasnt been relevant for DC since the 70's.
 
^ sigh....

The good old "DC characters are harder to adapt" argument that hasnt been relevant for DC since the 70's.

The hell is with the attitude? In my opinion, they are. The proof is in the pudding. Green Lantern? Superman Returns? If they were just as easy to adapt, why has the long gestating Wonder Woman hasn't happened yet? The show was squashed before the pilot even aired.

Why are there so many people here who are just needlessly snarky and rude to people with a difference of opinion?
 
The hell is with the attitude? In my opinion, they are. The proof is in the pudding. Green Lantern? Superman Returns? If they were just as easy to adapt, why has the long gestating Wonder Woman hasn't happened yet? The show was squashed before the pilot even aired.

Why are there so many people here who are just needlessly snarky and rude to people with a difference of opinion?


Because she is a female character.
 
Green Lantern and Superman Returns are not evidence that DC characters are harder to adapt. They're evidence that WB does not know how to adapt superheroes period whenever someone is not there to hold their hand (i.e. Nolan) so they resort to copying the formulas they've seen in previous successful films even if that formula doesn't work for the character they're doing. Green Lantern is the best example of this. They tried to copy the tone and feel of Iron Man and miserably failed. As for Superman Returns, that is an example of doing a 2006 version of the 1978 film and expecting it to be a bit hit even though that practically makes the film self-dated and just a complete rehash from start till scratch.

As for Wonder Woman, 2 reasons:
1) Studios often don't trust female superheroes to perform well.
2) Wonder Woman is a character that even comic book writers and readers don't know what to do with. Everyone is struggling with her, not just studios.
 
Meaning studios are afraid to adapt a female superhero because people wouldn't be interested? Or because it's hard to adapt her?

The former.

Wonder Woman character is no harder to bring to the silver screen than Superman. All this talk that she is tricky, that casting her is difficult and other stuff are not valid in my eyes.

The problem is finding people that says: "Let's do it. We are 100% behind this project and will see it through".
 
The former.

Wonder Woman character is no harder to bring to the silver screen than Superman. All this talk that she is tricky, that casting her is difficult and other stuff are not valid in my eyes.

The problem is finding people that says: "Let's do it. We are 100% behind this project and will see it through".

Thus, making her harder to adapt. How do you write her so she doesn't come off as a hollow, hollywoodized feminist character? They have to find a way to make her more than the sexy fighter chick that is so popular in films these days. She has to be shown to be beautiful without feeling like it's exploiting her T&A. Do you give her a love interest? Do you embrace her more outlandish powers and accessories or do you downplay them?

I think botching Green Lantern with the Iron Man-esque tone directly relates to not knowing how to adapt the character.

GL is largely space faring character with a huge amount of characters and environments. It's outlandish and grand. What does the studio do? Adapt that very important aspect of the character or copy a formula that worked with other films? I think the decision to keep GL on earth most of the runtime was a mix of not wanting to spend the money on space porn and fearing the audience would reject such a fantastical superhero film because they wouldn't relate to a film that takes place in space.
 
Thus, making her harder to adapt. How do you write her so she doesn't come off as a hollow, hollywoodized feminist character? They have to find a way to make her more than the sexy fighter chick that is so popular in films these days. She has to be shown to be beautiful without feeling like it's exploiting her T&A. Do you give her a love interest? Do you embrace her more outlandish powers and accessories or do you downplay them?

I think botching Green Lantern with the Iron Man-esque tone directly relates to not knowing how to adapt the character.

GL is largely space faring character with a huge amount of characters and environments. It's outlandish and grand. What does the studio do? Adapt that very important aspect of the character or copy a formula that worked with other films? I think the decision to keep GL on earth most of the runtime was a mix of not wanting to spend the money on space porn and fearing the audience would reject such a fantastical superhero film because they wouldn't relate to a film that takes place in space.

All that comes from the fact she is a woman, not the character's nature. Just you asking "should she have a love interest" show how expectations are different surrounding a strong female protagonist compared to a male one.

But then, Wonder Woman being a woman is part of the character nature.
 
There are inherent pros and cons to doing performance capture for a movie like JL. But in light of the images we've seen from the MOS trailers, a blend of live action and cgi will still be a thing to behold.

That being said, cgi / performance capture does bring some advantages. The problem of actresses being not tall enough will be solved instantly, no more forced perspective! Long shots will be possible.

Underwater scenes with Aquaman will be easier to film. No need for actors being shot underwater!

These are the things that cgi / performance capture advantage over live action. But live action will still have a bigger impact with audiences.
 
I think you'll find that the majority of posters on this forum have some respect for animated films and shows. But quite frankly, we are all waiting for a live action JL film and CGI just isn't it.

By all means do both. But one does not replace the other.
 
There are inherent pros and cons to doing performance capture for a movie like JL. But in light of the images we've seen from the MOS trailers, a blend of live action and cgi will still be a thing to behold.

That being said, cgi / performance capture does bring some advantages. The problem of actresses being not tall enough will be solved instantly, no more forced perspective! Long shots will be possible.

Underwater scenes with Aquaman will be easier to film. No need for actors being shot underwater!

These are the things that cgi / performance capture advantage over live action. But live action will still have a bigger impact with audiences.


If done well, CGI can be just as impactful. The Incredibles is the perfect example. I get just as involved in that film as any other great live action superhero film counterpart. The writing is the biggest key to make the audience accept the CGI visuals.
 
Well, I for one think an animated Justice League (ala DC Universe Online cut scenes) would be AWESOME! I've said this before but i believe if they animate it then the sky's the limit whereas live action always has the inherent limitations of using real people and stunts and practical effects etc etc. With a cg animated film they could just full out go for it and make it as grand as they want. The downside of course to that is cg animation ain't cheap and i imagine the budget would be pretty hefty but it'd ultimately be a little cheaper than a live action JL I would imagine.

The thing is though everyone (including myself) has been longing to see these superheroes portrayed in live action for forever. There's justsomething about seeing someone like RDJ completely transform into Tony Stark or Hugh Jackman transform into Wolverine that is magical. And from a studio perspective unless your Toy story or Finding Nemo, cg animation isnt a guaranteed money maker. Otherwise we'd be seeing much more animated films.

Still, I feel a cg animated JL would have the potential to be absolutely incredible....just not likely to happen :(
 
While I adore the DC Universe Online Trailer and the Future Batman in the Fortress of Solitude(I believe the same company did the amazing trailers for The Old Republic as well) I can't see it being done in a full length film because it would probably be really expensive. I'd love to have a direct-to-video animated feature with such quality but it seems unlikely.
 
Last edited:
I heard that Warner Brothers wanted to get into that market. I think they are producing a Lego movie right now and there are other films in the works. I don't think that a series of films based on the DC Universe wouldn't be a bad idea.
 
The hell is with the attitude? In my opinion, they are. The proof is in the pudding. Green Lantern? Superman Returns? If they were just as easy to adapt, why has the long gestating Wonder Woman hasn't happened yet? The show was squashed before the pilot even aired.

Why are there so many people here who are just needlessly snarky and rude to people with a difference of opinion?

Because frankly, IMO, your argument is weak. It reeks of "I don't actually read DC Comic characters". And I and many others have seen these poorly thought excuses as to why DC dosen't work before. Wonder Woman and GL are supposedly "difficult to adapt", but no one questioned Thor, despite the fact that he is just as, if not MORE steeped in mythology than the average DC character?

I mean, I could sit here and tell you that Fantastic Four is hard to adapt because Fox made two movies.....or I could tell you what actually happened, which is that Fox made two movies that sucked, and that says more about the filmmakers than it does the characters. It's the same thing with the "Green Lantern" film.
 
Green Lantern and Superman Returns are not evidence that DC characters are harder to adapt. They're evidence that WB does not know how to adapt superheroes period whenever someone is not there to hold their hand (i.e. Nolan) so they resort to copying the formulas they've seen in previous successful films even if that formula doesn't work for the character they're doing. Green Lantern is the best example of this. They tried to copy the tone and feel of Iron Man and miserably failed. As for Superman Returns, that is an example of doing a 2006 version of the 1978 film and expecting it to be a bit hit even though that practically makes the film self-dated and just a complete rehash from start till scratch.

As for Wonder Woman, 2 reasons:
1) Studios often don't trust female superheroes to perform well.
2) Wonder Woman is a character that even comic book writers and readers don't know what to do with. Everyone is struggling with her, not just studios.

I agree with much of this, especially on the fact that most people don't know what to do with Wonder Woman.

That said, the Wonder Woman animated film is a pretty good blueprint to adapting WW for audiences.
 
Because frankly, IMO, your argument is weak. It reeks of "I don't actually read DC Comic characters". And I and many others have seen these poorly thought excuses as to why DC dosen't work before. Wonder Woman and GL are supposedly "difficult to adapt", but no one questioned Thor, despite the fact that he is just as, if not MORE steeped in mythology than the average DC character?

I mean, I could sit here and tell you that Fantastic Four is hard to adapt because Fox made two movies.....or I could tell you what actually happened, which is that Fox made two movies that sucked, and that says more about the filmmakers than it does the characters. It's the same thing with the "Green Lantern" film.

Who the hell are to just assume I don't read DC comics? You're reading things into my post that simply aren't there. "DC doesn't work." When did I ever say anything remotely like that? I'm not talking down to DC or it's fans, merely saying what I feel is part of the problem. I would crawl over 10 great Avengers films to get to one good Justice League film. I want nothing more than DC to succeed at the big screen but most of what they've shown me is a complete lack of what makes the heroes work in the comics.

And yes, characters like Thor and the FF are hard to adapt. Marvel got Thor right but Fox got FF dead ass wrong because they only took the very base of what they saw in the books and adapted it at face value, making it a big budget sitcom.
 
I think when it comes to theatrical movies, people prefer to see Marvel/DC heroes in live-action. No matter how good the CGI animated film is for Justice league, it probably won't be as successful as a live-action DC movie, unless WB really promotes the animated film.
 
What's so terrible about it? if the animation is on par with Dreamworks or Pixar, if its rated PG-13, 2hrs, a good cast and good writers what would be so bad about it? it would be slightly cheaper to make too.

The simple answer is that a large percentage of adults would view an animated movie as "kid's stuff", and would balk. It's the reason that Planet Hulk and Green Lantern: First Flight (both superior to the live-action counterparts) went direct to DVD.
 
Who the hell are to just assume I don't read DC comics? You're reading things into my post that simply aren't there. "DC doesn't work." When did I ever say anything remotely like that? I'm not talking down to DC or it's fans, merely saying what I feel is part of the problem. I would crawl over 10 great Avengers films to get to one good Justice League film. I want nothing more than DC to succeed at the big screen but most of what they've shown me is a complete lack of what makes the heroes work in the comics.

...What you described has nothing to do with whether or not DC is "harder to adapt", and more to do with how the studio makes its films.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,683
Messages
21,786,263
Members
45,616
Latest member
stevezorz
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"