Justice League Justice League: News and Speculation - - Part 11

[Rodrigo90]

I don't see why they wouldn't use him though. He's perfect for Flash.

He just has to nail the audition.

 

[shauner111]

Don't worry, Gosling will be there if he doesn't get it

....HEY.....Justice League movie................

 

[dnno1]

Yes but they DID say Beall's script has been scrapped. Now I think it'll be used for a few things, but you have to take into consideration that they may have to start over starting now, or even this summer.

I doubt they'll cast the film by June. It's possible 1, maybe 2 can be cast by the end of the summer but there's no guarantees. the end of the casting each main member could be done later in the year.

Who said the script was scrapped?That's just rumor, you know? We don't have a director yet so we really don't know for sure what script will be used. For all we know, they may just modify Beal's script (it more than likely may have to be re-written/revised to accommodate whomever they cast for the film anyway) and start the project from there. If they want to make the film in the time frame that we see on the Internet (between now and say summer 2015) it would behoove them to use the Beal or Mulroney script and revise it to suit. According to the typical timeline I posted, if you cast the film by August, and they started principal photography by January, the film would be well into post production by November, 2014 and could make a summer 2015 release (without rushing). They could even spend the entire summer writing a new script and still make the release date as long as they cast the film by August.

 

[Iceman]

JL is a much more difficult film than any solo superhero film. And it has to be right 1st time unlike say GL. This is DC's big chance. Don't rush it.

 

[shauner111]

Who said the script was scrapped?That's just rumor, you know? We don't have a director yet so we really don't know for sure what script will be used. For all we know, they may just modify Beal's script (it more than likely may have to be re-written/revised to accommodate whomever they cast for the film anyway) and start the project from there. If they want to make the film in the time frame that we see on the Internet (between now and say summer 2015) it would behoove them to use the Beal or Mulroney script and revise it to suit. According to the typical timeline I posted, if you cast the film by August, and they started principal photography by January, the film would be well into post production by November, 2014 and could make a summer 2015 release (without rushing). They could even spend the entire summer writing a new script and still make the release date as long as they cast the film by August.

Yup, ur right. When u put it that way, u have a point! But im thinking we'll be seeing a solo movie steal that 2015 spot first.

 

[Rodrigo90]

I thought MOS2 was 2015?

 

[dnno1]

I thought MOS2 was 2015?

That was never announced and I doubt they would do that officially until after the proceeds of MoS1 come in.

 

[N7 Joseph Shepard]

when Man Of Steel passes 500 million worldwide (so no not just international or domestic) then expect to see the announcement of MOS2.

Man Of Steel cost between 235-250 million to make, double that and they will see it as being worth a sequel

 

[dnno1]

If it makes $460 million it will get a sequel, but whether it made expectations is a different story.

 

[N7 Joseph Shepard]

well Superman Returns was made for 209 mil and made ruffly 400 mil back, its follow up film was a reboot, thats why I said that if Man Of Steel passes 500 mil they will make it a true sequel

 

[erehwon0]

I don't believe plans aren't already in place. Just what plans for how successful MOS will be. Benchmarks for opening weekend, to sales from home video sales, plans must alredy be in place. They can't be just reacting to opening weekend sales.

And haven't people from DC said decisions have been made. Just what those decisions are, are still a mystery.

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

i don't know. sometimes i think they're pretty much afraid of doing anything without nolan's seal of approval. which would explain the apprehension of even merely mentioning other stuff in the works. i don't get why they have to wait till the mos box office returns to bring good news either. to me that seems like news about mos 2 more than anything. they're basically saying "if it bombs forget about it" and they'll be rebooting batman soon.

maybe its best that way, not having the cloud of the flash wondy and/or green lantern over this film might be a good idea; people will focus on MOS rightly so.


maybe marvel's eating all the candy but as unbiased fan, i don't think what they've put out has been all that spectacular. IM2, CAP:TFA, THOR, and The Avengers has been relatively underwhelming to me. i don't think any of those films is better then TDK and i genuinely think MOS could be better then that. I'm excited about THOR 2 and gotg though.

 

[Micromind]

TBH, I haven't been impressed by action content of any Marvel movies so far either, here's hoping that MOS delivers on that front.

 

[dnno1]

well Superman Returns was made for 209 mil and made ruffly 400 mil back, its follow up film was a reboot, thats why I said that if Man Of Steel passes 500 mil they will make it a true sequel

Some people arguably say that it actually cost $230 million to produce. If you think about it, if it actually cost $209 million, they would have went on with the sequel since it would have gone past the break even point, but that didn't happen. Reports were that the film didn't meet expectations, which means to me that it didn't get it money back and that it is likely that the film cost more than $209 million to produce.

 

[Micromind]

Some people arguably say that it actually cost $230 million to produce. If you think about it, if it actually cost $209 million, they would have went on with the sequel since it would have gone past the break even point, but that didn't happen. Reports were that the film didn't meet expectations, which means to me that it didn't get it money back and that it is likely that the film cost more than $209 million to produce.

You are citing the Box Office collections as the reason why sequel to SR wasn't made, but just box office results don't tell the whole story.

For example,Raimi's Spider-Man 3 was very successful commercially, but still Sony decided to reboot the franchise as Execs were not pleased with the direction where story was going.

In case of SR, there were reports that Singer was asked to give a presentation for the sequel to SR, but after that WB execs were not happy with it, so they decided to reboot.

 

[dnno1]

You are citing the Box Office collections as the reason why sequel to SR wasn't made, but just box office results don't tell the whole story.

For example, Raimi's Spider-Man 3 was very successful commercially, but still Sony decided to reboot the franchise as Execs were not pleased with the direction where story was going.

In case of SR, there were reports that Singer was asked to give a presentation for the sequel to SR, but after that WB execs were not happy with it, so they decided to reboot.

The reason why "Superman Returns" didn't get a sequel is not the same reason why Sony decided to reboot their Spider-Man franchise. With one (Superman Returns), they did not meet expectations financially. With the other (Spider-Man 4), the director, Sam Rami, could not meet the schedule that the studio wanted met for their next film (which means to me that he couldn't keep the project within budget). Sony opted to reboot the franchise instead of waiting for Rami to produce his fourth Spider-Man film in the time frame he cribbed. Nobody lost money over that. You can not say the same for "Superman Returns".

 

[N7 Joseph Shepard]

Some people arguably say that it actually cost $230 million to produce. If you think about it, if it actually cost $209 million, they would have went on with the sequel since it would have gone past the break even point, but that didn't happen. Reports were that the film didn't meet expectations, which means to me that it didn't get it money back and that it is likely that the film cost more than $209 million to produce.

I'm not going to base anything off what "some people may argue about", I'm going to work with whats at the moment, the "official" word and right now, that is that the movie cost 209 to make and they got back slightly over 400 worldwide back, not exactly double but they did turn a profit out of it.

Anything else is just purely speculation (for now) and fan banter (like what we are doing now lol) which should not be taken into account.

Other films that did just as poorly got direct sequels and not a reboot (Fantastic Four anyone lol).

Anyway moving on, I do think WB has plans for their DC movies post Man Of Steel and yeah obviously depending on how MOS is received will tell us which path they choose to go. Some people have said that should MOS under perform that WB will not make another DC film till they reboot Batman....I doubt that, but I think they will take alot more time to make future films.

Man Of Steel took ruffly 4 years to make (public talk for it started late 2010 and it will come on this June 2013). So its not like they rushed this one, but if they took that much time with it and it still under performs, I think we can pretty well double our wait time for their next step

 

[Micromind]

The reason why "Superman Returns" didn't get a sequel is not the same reason why Sony decided to reboot their Spider-Man franchise. With one (Superman Returns), they did not meet expectations financially. With the other (Spider-Man 4), the director, Sam Rami, could not meet the schedule that the studio wanted met for their next film (which means to me that he couldn't keep the project within budget). Sony opted to reboot the franchise instead of waiting for Rami to produce his fourth Spider-Man film in the time frame he cribbed. Nobody lost money over that. You can not say the same for "Superman Returns".

I was expecting your reply on those lines.

I have never said that SR was as successful financially as Spider-Man 3 but, it was not a bomb either, with box office collections, merchandise, product tie-ins and DVD and Blu Ray sales, I think it did broke even.

I gave example of SM 3 as it was a successful movie but the sequel was not green lighted, if we are to go by the logic you have given that money making was a criterion for the sequel then SM 3 should have got one.

WB had some hopes for the sequel too, remember Singer's "Angry God" comments ? But then, WB execs did not like the direction where story was going, also the momentum for sequel was dampened as Singer took too much time to finish post production work for Valkyrie and then there was writer's strike.

 

[shauner111]

I think they have it all planned out, but they're waiting to pull the trigger. They cant pull the trigger til they see Man of Steel's opening week.

 

[Micromind]

With the other (Spider-Man 4), the director, Sam Rami, could not meet the schedule that the studio wanted met for their next film (which means to me that he couldn't keep the project within budget)

And yet, TASM had a production budget of 230 mil. To me it was the vulture storyline that caused "creative differences" between the Studio and Raimi, which lead to them parting ways.

 

[Micromind]

I think they have it all planned out, but they're waiting to pull the trigger. They cant pull the trigger til they see Man of Steel's opening week.

They can't plan unless they have a good JL script in their hands, which they don't have right now.

 

[shauner111]

It was the Vulture storyline, the bad feedback of the fans regarding Venom, etc even though it was a commercial success and Raimi also says he had worries about how to further the story. Since there wasn't anything left for them to do between Peter and Mary Jane. I mean, u have to admit, the 3 movies rushed Peter's evolution a bit too much. I feel like the reboot is doing it properly. It's like the Webb/Garfield trilogy is a teenage Parker, only starting college in the 3rd and meeting Jameson in the 3rd.

 

[Iceman]

I was expecting your reply on those lines.

I have never said that SR was as successful financially as Spider-Man 3 but, it was not a bomb either, with box office collections, merchandise, product tie-ins and DVD and Blu Ray sales, I think it did broke even.

I gave example of SM 3 as it was a successful movie but the sequel was not green lighted, if we are to go by the logic you have given that money making was a criterion for the sequel then SM 3 should have got one.

WB had some hopes for the sequel too, remember Singer's "Angry God" comments ? But then, WB execs did not like the direction where story was going, also the momentum for sequel was dampened as Singer took too much time to finish post production work for Valkyrie and then there was writer's strike.

Without commenting on SR in particular, generally not being a bomb and breaking even aren't really enough. Even making only a small return is not worth it for the risk, time and effort in undertaking projects of this size and tying up resources. Remember they could easily just put these hundreds of millions into a much safer investment with a fixed rate of return.

 

[shauner111]

They can't plan unless they have a good JL script in their hands, which they don't have right now.

It was said last week that it's planned and to expect an announcement after MOS.

You don't need a full JL script to plan it out, all you need is the skeleton of what they want to achieve.

 

[Great Mind(s)]

I can see Wonder Woman in the works too. I can see WW being filmed first with JL right at the end kind of how The Wolverine + Days Of Future Past are going.