Llama_Shepherd:(in bold)
"Not a problem, Warner Brothers makes 30% more money than Disney per year on average."
Not sure your understanding the way studios do their bottom line and how that dictates what they make..but it doesn't matter. LOL!
"I think most of the fun would have come from seeing several heroes grouped together, the crossover aspect was played similarly to "Iron Man & Friends". Building of that franchise being a success."
That would be most of the fun if your only going for a small portion of the audience. Such as the comic book lovers. But even then your going to want a strong CHARACTER driven movie. It's not enough to have just guys running around in spandex. Much of the fleshing out of the characters were already done in the individual marvel character movies.
"Neither Harvey Dent nor Joker were established in The Dark Knight, you jumped right into the middle of Harvey's Mayoral campaign and Joker terrorising Gotham. Different circumstances, but the principle is the same."
Of course harvey was established in "TDK". He's the heart and soul of the movie and the only one to really have an 'arc'. So much so that he is pretty much the reason for the "Dark Knight Rises".
And the principal is entirely different. Your not talking about a TEAM movie there. Your talking about individuals in an individual movie. BATMAN.
"Superman and Batman are the two biggest superheroes in the world. Neither of those two characters would require any build up, I doubt there is even a single movie goer who wouldn't recognise the Superman and Batman logos. Just having those two together in a live action setting would guarantee money,....."
Well there we sort of agree. Although your kinda making my point. Superman as well as Batman have a story that has been told time and time again. IF you were going to make a Superman/Batman team up, then I would say you would have something. Which I think is the better way to go. BUT...since we're not talking JUST of those TWO ESTABLISHED characters...then you need to have a telling of those
other characters stories. You can't just have them thrown in there, or tell their stories in five minute each segments. Thats pretty lame. AND THATS what I mean about 'cutting corners.'
The public will reject that. As they should. Their being denied a good story about a
team of INTERESTING
individual characters, for the sake of an easy buck (that ultimately wont make their money back.)
And it doesn't matter that some of them "grew up on an animated series of the JLA. Who cares? You still can't just have a character like "Hawkman"---just BE there. LOL! Your banking a movie upwards of 200= MILLION dollars on the hopes that everyone has seen the animated JLA?
...comon.
"Avengers had individual storylines going on: Banner's acceptance of Hulk, Captain's "fish out of water", Tony's "you can't live as an island", Thor's ongoing feud with Loki, Fury's desperation to do his job and the love story between Natasha and Barton."
Yes. Exactly. Individual INTERESTING storylines that was only made possible because NO TIME had to be wasted on the telling of WHO these characters are and WHAT they are all about. That time was already spent in each characters individual movies. And done WELL. Even LOKI's story was told in "THOR". LOL!
Which just goes to my point that you don't want to eat up valuable (and expensive) movie time during the TEAM movie, fleshing out each character (batman and supes aside.)
You can't cut corners in this case. Its too risky to do that and really not all that wise on a story front.
"Secondly it has yet to be seen whether it would fail, it is arguable that Avengers is all the marketing a Justice League film would require and the rest can be handled on the backs of Superman and Batman.
I don't know anyone that hasn't heard of Superman or Batman, so there we go, no problem here either."
I'm sorry..I just don't have any idea of what your saying here. I'm not trying to be a jack ass either.
Your talking about a studio making a 400 MILLION DOLLAR movie (200mill to make and about 200mill to market) and do it on the cheap of how the Avengers did it.
"on the cheap" meaning not really giving the individual characters their due in their own movies.
Now you can maybe just throw in Hawkman and just gloss over his story. But you can't do that with "Grean Lantern". You SURE CAN'T do that with WOnderWoman. And what about the Flash? Jeez!!! You cut corners there and you are making a very expensive "B" movie. Thats not what
I want. And neither do you.
And your basing all your cut corners on the hopes that Batman and Superman thrown in will help people not see the lazy after thought development of the other MAJOR characters.
AND your hoping that the very NAME of Batman and Superman will sell it alone.
Lets not forget that both characters had MAJOR bombs at the box office. And BOTH characters names couldn't sell it alone.
Don't cut corners. Don't be lazy. Don't cheat the audience..just because you want it sooo bad. It
still has to be good.
One has to love these characters enough to resist their inner fan-boy to 'just get something out there'! Enough to give these characters that have been around for generations...the time they deserve.
The "Avengers" have shown DC the way to do it. DC should take the time to
DO. IT. RIGHT.
They owe it to the fans. They owe it to those characters. NOT to take the hack way out.
Fun dialogue! Thanks!
________________
http://stevegarcia.zenfolio.com/
. 
