Justice League Status Updates Thread

[Thundercrack85]

The real issue with Green Lantern was that the writing and acting were bad. The special effects were subpar, despite the budget. The costume looked silly. Especially the mask (which made no sense anyway, he's on an alien planet, who the hell is going to recognize him?).

It was just a bad movie. You have plenty to work with, they just made a bad movie.

 

[MadVillainy]

Green Lantern should have been a purely sci-fi, space opera genre. You could have made the origin movie Earth based (which they obviously did), but after that I would have branched away from Earth. It shouldn't have played out as a superhero film. It should have been more along the lines of Star Trek/Wars.

There is nothing "genre ascending" about Flash. Pretty straight forward character that won't sell by himself in a genre pretty packed with those types of characters.

Wonder Woman could have played itself out similar to Thor, only taking more advantage of the mythological roots of the character, while Thor went a more sci-fi, futuristic route. No problems there.

So that is basically the boundary I think they need to clear. Have a kick-ass Superman franchise. Re-introduce Batman. Do a proper WW movie that appeals on the level of Thor. Don't make another superhero movie with Green Lantern. Flash is an add on that doesn't need his own film. Wouldn't hurt, but I'd pass. The classic orange costume would never work on the big screen.

As far as combining, select a Green Lantern that lives in the time of Bruce Wayne. Could be anybody. The solo franchises would be loosely connected. Just come together for an event. But if they recast everybody I don't think it sells in the least bit. It needs to be a team of all-stars that have grown into the characters that's the point.

I very much agree with your "genre ascending" statement. I really hope that DC does that with all of their future movies.

Have Superman be a journalist film like All the President's Men or State of Play
Batman could be (and already is) a movie about cops hunting down gangsters like The Untouchables
Aquaman could be like King Arthur/Game of Thrones underwater
I could go on...

However, I really disagree about Flash. Flash could be a forensic police film. I cant think of a comparison film right now, but it's there.

OT: I often hear the complaint that GL spent too much time on Earth. I didnt like the film, but being Earth bound wasn't the reason. Anyway, if they didn't keep the origin rooted on Earth what wouldve happened to Hal's earth relationships that formed him into what he is as a GL

 

[AvengeME]

I very much agree with your "genre ascending" statement. I really hope that DC does that with all of their future movies.

Have Superman be a journalist film like All the President's Men or State of Play
Batman could be (and already is) a movie about cops hunting down gangsters like The Untouchables
Aquaman could be like King Arthur/Game of Thrones underwater
I could go on...

However, I really disagree about Flash. Flash could be a forensic police film. I cant think of a comparison film right now, but it's there.

OT: I often hear the complaint that GL spent too much time on Earth. I didnt like the film, but being Earth bound wasn't the reason. Anyway, if they didn't keep the origin rooted on Earth what wouldve happened to Hal's earth relationships that formed him into what he is as a GL

No different than juggling Superman and Kent. Although obviously the threats are exclusive to Earth, but a strictly Earth based villain like Luthor over and over again alleviates the need for other worldly threats. That has to change.

Thing with Green Lantern, you can do other stories. Move on to other Lanterns. The universe is so vast. If you are constantly focusing on the love interest on Earth, or your "pre-powered" friends it gets kinda repetitive from a superhero standpoint. Saving the damsel in distress or the ordinary citizens over and over again. How about serving the greater cause for all life in the universe? That is what Green Lantern should be about.

Let's see what the Thor movie does. I expect them to take it into the nine realms. Earth will be less of a factor.

On Flash, I don't see it. It's potentially cliched material. Ordinary officer getting super powers and fighting crime. We have seen that story one to many times.

I don't feel DC has the spinoff potential the way Marvel does. It is what it is. They do have a lot more obscure properties which have obviously been adapted from time to time.

 

[DaveMoral]

I'm not arguing that you can't make it work, I'm question whether you should do it in the first place. What are we getting out of a shared universe other than a bunch of ok superhero films? Using Nolan's approach of keeping characters separate ensures they aren't bound by and one direction or style and gives them a better chance of producing a higher quality of film granted a passionate team is behind the movie. I hate to keep bringing up Nolan but the results he's produce speak for themselves and if the same approached is being used for Man of Steel and produces similar results then the only argument in favour for a shared universe is simply because the fans want it, and quite frankly sometimes they need to be ignored.

What about a shared universe harms a character in a solo film though? Thor, Iron Man, Cap and Hulk all have their solo films and no other heroes show up in them. I'm certain that will continue to be true in IM3.

It's not as if you make reference to Metropolis in Batman suddenly Superman needs to show his face. Batman's world can still be his world. Little details, like an edition of the Daily Planet with a headline about Superman next to a Gotham Tribune isn't going to harm the world. It gives the world depth, and doesn't stop a director or writer from writing the story they want to.

What about tying the Nolanverse Batman to MOS by mentions of either city in each film would hamper what Nolan's doing with TDKR? I just don't see it. Because there's an alien that can fly, and is invulnerable, that means something has to change fundamentally about Batman? He can't still walk around in that TDK suit of armor and have plausibly realistic gear? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[MadVillainy]

No different than juggling Superman and Kent. Although obviously the threats are exclusive to Earth, but a strictly Earth based villain like Luthor over and over again alleviates the need for other worldly threats. That has to change.


Thing with Green Lantern, you can do other stories. Move on to other Lanterns. The universe is so vast. If you are constantly focusing on the love interest on Earth, or your "pre-powered" friends it gets kinda repetitive from a superhero standpoint. Saving the damsel in distress or the ordinary citizens over and over again. How about serving the greater cause for all life in the universe? That is what Green Lantern should be about.

Let's see what the Thor movie does. I expect them to take it into the nine realms. Earth will be less of a factor.

On Flash, I don't see it. It's potentially cliched material. Ordinary officer getting super powers and fighting crime. We have seen that story one to many times.

I don't feel DC has the spinoff potential the way Marvel does. It is what it is. They do have a lot more obscure properties which have obviously been adapted from time to time.

Superman/Kent is different then Hal/GL because with Hal/GL people are saying that people are saying that he should spend time away from a lot of his supporting cast like Carol, Tom, his family, etc. I think they should up the amount he spends in space (especially in a sequel) but they still need to keep Hal on Earth since so much of who he is revolves around it. I mean he is a protector of Earth (among other places)

I do think Hal spending time away from Earth could be a interesting thing to explore in a sequel. At the end of the first film, Hal could leave Earth to train/work with the Corps. During the first act of the 2nd film he comes back to the "mundane" life of Earth.

About Flash: Honestly, I agree with you about the "It's potentially cliched material. Ordinary officer getting super powers and fighting crime. We have seen that story one to many times." quote. That's why I wish that they would tackle Wally West over Barry Allen

What about a shared universe harms a character in a solo film though? Thor, Iron Man, Cap and Hulk all have their solo films and no other heroes show up in them. I'm certain that will continue to be true in IM3.

It's not as if you make reference to Metropolis in Batman suddenly Superman needs to show his face. Batman's world can still be his world. Little details, like an edition of the Daily Planet with a headline about Superman next to a Gotham Tribune isn't going to harm the world. It gives the world depth, and doesn't stop a director or writer from writing the story they want to.

if they ever do a share universe that's how i want it set up. Rather than cameos, post credit scenes, etc.

 

[protocida]

Green Lantern had to introduce Hal Jordan's friends and family on Earth. I believe they could've had more scenes of him in Oa training with Kilowog, Tomar-Re and Sinestro, a longer subplot about Sinestro and an ending that could either have Hal go to Oa to fight the enemy or have a few Green Lanterns come to Earth.

The movie came close to that, but we all know they had to cut big parts of the story because they ran out of money. A revamp/reboot could improve that aspect.

 

[MadVillainy]

Green Lantern had to introduce Hal Jordan's friends and family on Earth. I believe they could've had more scenes of him in Oa training with Kilowog, Tomar-Re and Sinestro, a longer subplot about Sinestro and an ending that could either have Hal go to Oa to fight the enemy or have a few Green Lanterns come to Earth.

The movie came close to that, but we all know they had to cut big parts of the story because they ran out of money. A revamp/reboot could improve that aspect.

Bingo

 

[AvengeME]

Problem is most could care less about Hal's circle of people after his movie failed.

On the bright side, they introduced the universe. But making a sequel would be pointless. Audiences don't care enough about the character.

I would use John Stewart as the next Green Lantern, be it Justice League or another film in that mythos. Maybe give Hal a small supporting role if Reynolds wanted to do it. Just shed yourself from Hal Jordan for the time being.

 

[MadVillainy]

I don't think there should be a GL sequel to the Reynolds film

I also am skeptical of a John Stewart solo film

 

[Thundercrack85]

There is a fundamental difference between Green Lantern and Superman. Green Lantern begins on Earth, and goes into space. Superman begins in space (well, technically on Krypton), and then moves to Earth. Many of his villains come to Earth just to fight him.

 

[AvengeME]

I don't think there should be a GL sequel to the Reynolds film

I also am skeptical of a John Stewart solo film

Why are people always picking on the black heroes that don't have an actor named Will Smith attached? Always relegated to a supporting role.

I do think John Stewart works best in Justice League though. It's just one example of how universes can co-exist detracting from characters or stories from the solo films.

 

[MadVillainy]

Why are people always picking on the black heroes that don't have an actor named Will Smith attached? Always relegated to a supporting role.

I do think John Stewart works best in Justice League though. It's just one example of how universes can co-exist detracting from characters or stories from the solo films.

Because compared to Kyle and Hal he doesnt have that strong of a supporting cast or villains. Neither does Guy. I really want to see them all on screen

 

[metaphysician]

Honestly, I think using John Stewart and just importing to him many of Hal's villains ( all two of them! ) wouldn't have been a bad idea. John had more overall exposure up to that point, for what it was worth. Too late now, though.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's not like the average moviegoer saw Green Lantern, so use whoever you want.

 

[Project862006]

The real issue with Green Lantern was that the writing and acting were bad. The special effects were subpar, despite the budget. The costume looked silly. Especially the mask (which made no sense anyway, he's on an alien planet, who the hell is going to recognize him?).

It was just a bad movie. You have plenty to work with, they just made a bad movie.

pretty sure he did'nt wear the mask on Oa

 

[HighFivingMF]

pretty sure he did'nt wear the mask on Oa

He didn't. He had it when he first woke up, then they explicitly state that the mask will only be activated when protection of his identity is necessary and the mask fades away until he goes back to Earth. But hey, whatever reason to **** on the movie I guess.

 

[The Guard]

Of course you can make any character share the screen with any other, the question is what is the benefit of doing so? What are we ultimately getting out of it? Again there's gotta be a better argument than because it would be cool. Once you start combining characters universes you're leaving very little room to move in terms of the type of movies you can produce.

What benfit? The interaction of those characters with each other. It isn't just cool, its compelling.

If anything, with a shared universe, there's even MORE room to move in terms of the type of movies that can be made.

Green Lantern should have been a purely sci-fi, space opera genre. You could have made the origin movie Earth based (which they obviously did), but after that I would have branched away from Earth. It should not have played out as a superhero film. It should have been more along the lines of Star Trek/Wars.

Because...why?

No, it shouldn't have been, because that's not the concept, and neither is it the best way to introduce the concept. Green Lantern is a superhero. He has always been a superhero/space cop. While STAR WARS and STAR TREK have similarities, Green Lantern should never be "like" them, because then it just looks derivative. Stories about Green Lantern should be like...hmm...Green Lantern. Which is a superhero concept. So yes, it should have been a superhero film.

I'm kinda done with people vaguely mentioning that every single thing about GREEN LANTERN was bad. It's simply not remotely true.

And I'm getting annoyed with all this "It shouldn't be a superhero film, it should be a crime drama, or a Greek myth, or a this or a that. Properly written, it would have elements of those things ANYWAY, as part of that character's mythology, but it should still be a superhero movie, because thats what the characters are, superheroes. And that's what The Dark Knight was, despite any "gritty crime drama" elements people feel it possessed. A superhero movie.

 

[Thundercrack85]

He didn't. He had it when he first woke up, then they explicitly state that the mask will only be activated when protection of his identity is necessary and the mask fades away until he goes back to Earth. But hey, whatever reason to **** on the movie I guess.

Okay, I admit I may be misremembering that part of the film. I'll take your word for it, because I really don't want to watch it again to double check.

 

[batlovescatDC]

Of course, considering the buckets of money Avengers made, WB's top guys are in the bunker trying to work this out.

At the end of the day, what's the in for the audience? Considering how successful he is now, it's really only Bale as Batman that's the in for the audience. But, he's done now.

WB is probably looking for someone to really hang their Justice League movie on and I'm willing to bet that Cavill's the guy...IF Man of Steel is a major hit.

If Green Lantern was a major hit, I think you would've heard something by now. If Man of Steel doesn't do what they want it to do, I think it's dead in the water...unless WB pony's up a ridiculous amount of cash to get Bale and Nolan back into the fold and make either a World's Finest movie or Justice League movie happen.

But, I don't even think that's going to do it.

It's my opinion that a Justice League/World's Finest is all on the shoulders of Cavill and Snyder.

The characters themselves are enough of an in for the audience. Bale is very succesful as Batman, yes. He is the best Batman there has been, yes. But the character isn't going to stop being successful just because Bale isn't doing it anymore. Anything with Batman in it has always been majorly financially successful. Superman is also a cash cow no matter who is playing it. They have enough to do a successful JL film with the characters and visuals alone without having to rely on a specific actor to portray a certain character.

I personally think that next, they need to get a high class A+ popular actor to play Batman now that Bale is done. But if they don't that doesn't mean it won't bring in a lot of money.


As far as who should direct Justice League, imo... JJ ABRAMS FTW!!!!

 

[Thundercrack85]

I wouldn't mind a recast. Bale's Batman voice always cracks me up. Compare it to say Kevin Conroy.

Still, a good performance can really help, as we learned in Iron Man. Without Downey, there would be no Avengers film. At least not one like we have now.

 

[batlovescatDC]

Batman is like a James Bond for comic book films. The films will continue on, with different actors... and it will always be a huge success at the box office.

 

[jmc]

What benfit? The interaction of those characters with each other. It isn't just cool, its compelling.

If anything, with a shared universe, there's even MORE room to move in terms of the type of movies that can be made.

Compelling if the desire is there to do it. WB don't have the same desire for superhero films that Marvel do, and they never will because the guys running the show there aren't fans who happen to be studio execs, they're just studio execs who have got more than dudes in capes to worry about. The success for WB in superheroes has come down to pure dumb luck with whom the director is, their mindset is always business first, they don't give a damn about ensuring the product is good as evident from GL, all they care about is the coin. If we're honest with ourselves they lucked out with Nolan, simple as that. That is why there is no benefit to a single universe for DC characters because there is never going to be the same desire for them from those up top, if that's the case then just let characters roam freely on their own without placing restrictions on them, let the director who's passionate about the project do his thing and make the films as unique as possible.

 

[AvengeME]

I wouldn't mind a recast. Bale's Batman voice always cracks me up. Compare it to say Kevin Conroy.

Still, a good performance can really help, as we learned in Iron Man. Without Downey, there would be no Avengers film. At least not one like we have now.

I think people overestimate the selling power of these characters. Try doing a Pirates movie without Johnny Depp and see what happens. The first iteration of the character in live action takes years to replace. Wait at least 9-12 years before replacing the actor in a reboot or a sequel or whatever.

 

[jmc]

What about a shared universe harms a character in a solo film though? Thor, Iron Man, Cap and Hulk all have their solo films and no other heroes show up in them. I'm certain that will continue to be true in IM3.

It's not as if you make reference to Metropolis in Batman suddenly Superman needs to show his face. Batman's world can still be his world. Little details, like an edition of the Daily Planet with a headline about Superman next to a Gotham Tribune isn't going to harm the world. It gives the world depth, and doesn't stop a director or writer from writing the story they want to.

What about tying the Nolanverse Batman to MOS by mentions of either city in each film would hamper what Nolan's doing with TDKR? I just don't see it. Because there's an alien that can fly, and is invulnerable, that means something has to change fundamentally about Batman? He can't still walk around in that TDK suit of armor and have plausibly realistic gear? That doesn't make sense to me.

Issue i have with a connected universe on film is that the films tends to be handcuffed from reaching their full potential. I understand Marvel's want to ensure they didn't screw up, at the same time it came at the cost of the films reaching their full potential. IM1 and Avengers did because the were free to do so, which is why both are seen as the best from the studio. Thor and Cap whilst well made never really were aloud to get out of first gear and thus I felt never really hit the heights they should of. Hulk was mishandled and IM2 was just a waste of time. The other issues is the films tend to feel the same and formulaic, and quite frankly I don't want DC characters to be cut from the same cloth, I want more from them, I've seen what can be done with them and I want more of that.

 

[DaveMoral]

Issue i have with a connected universe on film is that the films tends to be handcuffed from reaching their full potential. I understand Marvel's want to ensure they didn't screw up, at the same time it came at the cost of the films reaching their full potential. IM1 and Avengers did because the were free to do so, which is why both are seen as the best from the studio. Thor and Cap whilst well made never really were aloud to get out of first gear and thus I felt never really hit the heights they should of. Hulk was mishandled and IM2 was just a waste of time. The other issues is the films tend to feel the same and formulaic, and quite frankly I don't want DC characters to be cut from the same cloth, I want more from them, I've seen what can be done with them and I want more of that.

You're griping on the approach Marvel took, though, as if that's the only way to make it come about.

I don't see why there is any kind of reason a Batman movie couldn't look and feel completely different from a Superman movie, while simultaneously co-existing in the same universe. Just like the comics. To me, it should be as jarring for us as it is for those characters to interact. Batman should be awestruck by Superman, but concerned with what it would mean if this guy turned bad. It's not just about making the characters work together on screen, it's making their worlds work together on screen. The difference between Gotham and Metropolis should be night and day.

Again, there's nothing inherent about the shared universe concept that inhibits stories, characters, atmospheres or anything else about the film. Just because that's how Marvel did it, that doesn't mean that's how a JL film would have to come about. There's certainly a cautionary tale in there... but I think Iron Man, and The Incredible Hulk were both totally self-contained films that fed into The Avengers and were both excellent works. And stylistically they were pretty different.