Official Justice League Status Update Thread

[dnno1]

It's in WB's best interest to come out with eleventeen different versions of Batman, after Nolans version becomes the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time domestically, which will please their shareholders.

Yes. Batman sells so lets try and exploit the brand as much as we can (whatever the market will bear).

I see a good reason why it shouldn't, Dark Knight. Now, so does WB.

That's not a good reason (if it even was). The success of Dark Knight should be a sign that you can take the brand and make it very successful. Diversifying it will only expand its market size and revenue intake. Stopping there would be kind of narrow minded.

Marvel is doing it by coming out with solo films first leading up to Avengers...I don't understand why you continue to devalue your stance by bringing up the point you are disagreeing with. The only fact right now is Dark Knight is going to be the highest grossing comic book film of all time.

Iron Man had Nick Fury (a character from another brand) make a cameo appearance in it. "The Incredible Hulk" had an cameo appearance from Tony Stark (the alter ego of Iron man - a different brand). You can technically argue that these films were not entirely solos and definitely not say that what was done served to hurt these films. The Justice League brand is just a collage of the different brands of the DC universe. I has been very successful as a comic book/graphic novel, with several titles in publication and has had successful runs on television as an animated series. Having a Justice League film with the multiple brands in it should be no different than what Marvel has done with Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and X-Men in my book and the whole solo films first argument doesn't hold water in my book.

 

[bunk]

Scripting.

Oh...not good, I take it?

It's actually not a bad move. They've got the cartoon fan base. You've got Robin for the lead who's a brand name. They can leave the "adults" out of it, so as not to complicate things. And you know they've been dying to pull the trigger on that "teenie bopper" gun.

 

[Showtime]

Yes. Batman sells so lets try and exploit the brand as much as we can (whatever the market will bear).

That was their original contention, it didn't work, so now they have changed their mind. So they aren't going to make 10 Batman movies at once. Sorry.

That's not a good reason (if it even was). The success of Dark Knight should be a sign that you can take the brand and make it very successful. Diversifying it will only expand its market size and revenue intake. Stopping there would be kind of narrow minded.

Narrow minded according to Dnno1, not a good reason according to Dnno1. WB obviously thinks doing a Justice League now is narrow minded and that Dark Knight is a good reason not to do one...hence why they have changed their minds after the movie they call Dark Knight performed so well.

Iron Man had Nick Fury (a character from another brand) make a cameo appearance in it. "The Incredible Hulk" had an cameo appearance from Tony Stark (the alter ego of Iron man - a different brand). You can technically argue that these films were not entirely solos and definitely not say that what was done served to hurt these films. The Justice League brand is just a collage of the different brands of the DC universe. I has been very successful as a comic book/graphic novel, with several titles in publication and has had successful runs on television as an animated series. Having a Justice League film with the multiple brands in it should be no different than what Marvel has done with Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and X-Men in my book and the whole solo films first argument doesn't hold water in my book.

Having a Justice League film sure will be successful, I'm not arguing that. I am arguing that George Miller's Justice League film isn't going to happen because of Dark Knight. A JL film sure will happen down the line, just not George Miller's version. That is what I am arguing. I thought that was pretty clear.

Cameos do not make a film, non solo. They mentioned Gotham and a a Clown Massacre in Superman Returns, according to Dnno1's theory that means "technically" it is "World's Finest".

Your comparisons are hilarious bud. Did another Iron Man show up in Iron Man? Another Hulk show up in Hulk? What does this have two do with having to film versions of Batman gliding around at the same time?

 

[The Major]

The success of Dark Knight should be a sign that you can take the brand and make it very successful.

Many, many films have done that before TDK.

Diversifying it will only expand its market size and revenue intake. Stopping there would be kind of narrow minded.

Isn't this how we got Robocop 3 and Batman & Robin?

 

[dnno1]

It's very simple. Do you really think WB is going to risk ****ing up their relationship with Nolan at this point?

For money yes. There are other directors who have done just as well has he is doing now that they could easily hire to helm the franchise. If you can remember they did that with Richard Donner way back when. BTW you should wait until the Oscar is in his hands before you ask that question.

I don't care what was said publicly in the past, Nolan (along with the likes of Bale and Charles Roven and the Superman team...among others) was 100% against Justice League from the start. I think some are downplaying how much of a major factor Nolan and the Batman team were in killing JLA at the beginning of 2008.

I believe that and it was for their own (in some ways selfish) reasons. You make it look like the WB is afraid of Nolan when they have an major motion picture studio to worry about. Like I said before he can be replaced. I am sure there are a lot of directors who would leap for the chance at helming the Batman franchise (Sam Rami for one) and would definitely try to outdo what Nolan has done for it.

 

[dnno1]

Isn't this how we got Robocop 3 and Batman & Robin?

And the same thing could happen to a third Nolan film. Diversifying in the instance that if have been arguing is by repackaging the character and featuring him in other franchises (not necessarily within the same franchise).

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

For money yes. There are other directors who have done just as well has he is doing now that they could easily hire to helm the franchise. If you can remember they did that with Richard Donner way back when. BTW you should wait until the Oscar is in his hands before you ask that question.

I believe that and it was for their own (in some ways selfish) reasons. You make it look like the WB is afraid of Nolan when the have an major motion picture studio to worry about. Like I said before he can be replaced. I am sure there are a lot of directors who would leap for the chance at helming the Batman franchise (Sam Rami for one) and would definitely try to outdo what Nolan has done for it.

Dude...you seriously don't know what you're talking about. Do yourself a favor. Stop.

 

[The Major]

And the same thing could happen to a third Nolan film.

Given how many film franchises self destruct in similar ways on their third movie hopefully Nolan has enough control not to let that happen to Batman.

Diversifying in the instance that if have been arguing is by repackaging the character and featuring him in other franchises (not necessarily within the same franchise).

Okay.

 

[bunk]

The thing is, you can't just up and replace Nolan. The actors will have a sense of loyalty to him at this point. Obviously, replacing actors is not something you want to do before making a sequel to one of the biggest movies ever.

 

[Showtime]

Like I said before he can be replaced. I am sure there are a lot of directors who would leap for the chance at helming the Batman franchise (Sam Rami for one) and would definitely try to outdo what Nolan has done for it.

Sam Raimi, you mean the director who made Spiderman. The franchise that Nolan and Dark Knight just swooped past and is now looking at in the rearview mirror...

 

[Evil Twin]

While I don't want to advocate for a movie that we know very little about and I expect to be recast if it moves forward at all, I do think it's relevant to point out that the franchise "Justice League" has nearly a 50 year history and is as well established and famous as any team concept to the mainstream.

I also think that anyone that doesn't understand that these are actors portraying fictional characters is either mentally under 12 or needs serious psychiatric help. People don't mentally collapse when they head home from TDK and see Adam West, Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, or George Clooney as Batman. (O.k. maybe the latter due to the awfulness of Batman and Robin.) Any more than they collapse when someone takes over as the next James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Superman, Dracula, Hamlet, Robin Hood, etc.

What I do think matters is that if there's another Batman on film is that someone as credible as Christian Bale is hired to portray him to make it look legitimate and not like a cash in. You don't necessarily need an A-lister, but going with an unknown is just going to draw skepticism. George Lazenby is probably the most famous example of an unknown being met with extreme resistance.

 

[Showtime]

The thing is, you can't just up and replace Nolan. The actors will have a sense of loyalty to him at this point. Obviously, replacing actors is not something you want to do before making a sequel to one of the biggest movies ever.

No. You can. You can replace Bale and you can replace Nolan, and it will be better then Dark Knight. You can.

 

[The Major]

Bunk:

Nolan's brother might walk, too.

Not sure about Goyer.

Evil:

Many characters in JL the audience barely know exist. They are not as recognizable or know the basics like Batman or Superman. A JL film would define these characters for generations to the public and Hollywood itself.

 

[dnno1]

That was their original contention, it didn't work, so now they have changed their mind. So they aren't going to make 10 Batman movies at once. Sorry.

I am sorry, but they have never made or panned to have 10 Batman films at once. What an erroneous statement.

Narrow minded according to Dnno1, not a good reason according to Dnno1. WB obviously thinks doing a Justice League now is narrow minded and that Dark Knight is a good reason not to do one...hence why they have changed their minds after the movie they call Dark Knight performed so well.

Want to take a vote on that to see how many others agree with that? Better yet, why not send that as a question to the execs at the WB?

Having a Justice League film sure will be successful, I'm not arguing that. I am arguing that George Miller's Justice League film isn't going to happen because of Dark Knight. A JL film sure will happen down the line, just not George Miller's version. That is what I am arguing. I thought that was pretty clear.

I think you argument was that "the food and beverage market is not the same as characters on film" and I was saying that the concept of diversifying a product is similar in all of these industries. It was my response to a question TheVileOne asked that you decided to put your two cents into. I don't know what George Miller has to do with this argument.

Cameos do not make a film, non solo. They mentioned Gotham and a a Clown Massacre in Superman Returns, according to Dnno1's theory that means "technically" it is "World's Finest".

No, I didn't say that. I said technically you could argue that it is not a solo film -- and references to places and things in another franchise only makes the connection that they are in the same universe. It is not quite the same as the physical appearance of a character from another franchise.

Your comparisons are hilarious bud. Did another Iron Man show up in Iron Man? Another Hulk show up in Hulk? What does this have two do with having to film versions of Batman gliding around at the same time?

Actually it's your justifications for why there shouldn't be different actors playing the role and different interpretations of Batman that are. There is not real basis for it,

 

[BATZARRO WWD]

It's very simple. Do you really think WB is going to risk ****ing up their relationship with Nolan at this point?

I don't care what was said publicly in the past, Nolan (along with the likes of Bale and Charles Roven and the Superman team...among others) was 100% against Justice League from the start. I think some are downplaying how much of a major factor Nolan and the Batman team were in killing JLA at the beginning of 2008.

And now his Batman Begins sequel has exceeded damn-near every expectation by grossing well over $400 million domestic in a little over 3 weeks(!) Add to the fact that he is now a free-agent and can do whatever he wants, where-ever he wants.

There is no way WB is going to want to get on Nolan's bad-side after The Dark Knight becomes the 2nd highest-grossing film of all-time. The studio absolutely wants to keep him there and they badly want Batman III under his direction.

Justice League isn't happening.

Yeah, when I met Nolan the other day he was just STEAMING about Justice League. I mean JUMPING MAD! He was running around , asking execs to kill JLA. When did you meet him, by the way? I saw him around Smarch...

Now come on. Do you really REALLY think Cristopher Nolan has nothing better to do than to have movies cancelled? Huh? Does it work like that in your mind? I mean, the movie got as far as preproduction, if he'd cared so much about it he might have killed it at script phase? Plus, is he so much of a child that he'd quit making a movie he was planning just because of that? I'd wager not!

And then you don't care what he said on the past? What? So now you know more about what Nolan knows than he himself?

All in all, pure, distilled conjecture and speculation.

 

[bunk]

WB should just settle it with a cage match between Miller and Nolan.

This Sunday.... the man who loves penguins.....against the man who has something against The Penguin.... fight to the death!!

 

[dnno1]

Given how many film franchises self destruct in similar ways on their third movie hopefully Nolan has enough control not to let that happen to Batman.

He just better make sure he doesn't run out of money before the film is finished.

 

[dnno1]

Sam Raimi, you mean the director who made Spiderman. The franchise that Nolan and Dark Knight just swooped past and is now looking at in the rearview mirror...

Yes. You know he wanted to do the Batman films before they gave it to Tim Burton didn't you?

 

[Showtime]

Yeah, when I met Nolan the other day he was just STEAMING about Justice League. I mean JUMPING MAD! He was running around , asking execs to kill JLA. When did you meet him, by the way? I saw him around Smarch...

Now come on. Do you really REALLY think Cristopher Nolan has nothing better to do than to have movies cancelled? Huh? Does it work like that in your mind? I mean, the movie got as far as preproduction, if he'd cared so much about it he might have killed it at script phase? Plus, is he so much of a child that he'd quit making a movie he was planning just because of that? I'd wager not!

And then you don't care what he said on the past? What? So now you know more about what Nolan knows than he himself?

All in all, pure, distilled conjecture and speculation.

Yeah...I'm pretty sure Nolan was all tickled pink and what not about WB trying to get another Batman in production while he was still working on Dark Knight. He probably asked if he could hold Miller's megaphone and everything.

 

[Showtime]

Yes. You know he wanted to do the Batman films before they gave it to Tim Burton didn't you?

Yes? Why does Sam Raimi wanting to do Batman translate into he would do it better then Nolan...

 

[dnno1]

Dude...you seriously don't know what you're talking about. Do yourself a favor. Stop.

I won't take you seriously on that comment.

 

[dnno1]

Yes? Why does Sam Raimi wanting to do Batman translate into he would do it better then Nolan...

He's just an example of a director who wouldn't mind doing a Batman film. You never know. He could make a good film. He certainly did it with 3 Spider Man films.

 

[bunk]

2 Spider Man films.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

I won't take you seriously on that comment.

It's your call...but you should. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Showtime]

I am sorry, but they have never made or panned to have 10 Batman films at once. What an erroneous statement.

Well they aren't even going to have two, which is much less then ten, but only a little less then the amount you want.

Want to take a vote on that to see how many others agree with that? Better yet, why not send that as a question to the execs at the WB?

I won't have to send anything to WB, you'll be hearing about how George Miller's Justice League isn't happening quite soon actually. Which is what I've been trying to tell you for page after page.

I think you argument was that "the food and beverage market is not the same as characters on film" and I was saying that the concept of diversifying a product is similar in all of these industries. It was my response to a question TheVileOne asked that you decided to put your two cents into. I don't know what George Miller has to do with this argument.

Which it isn't. Since there are a multitude of examples of diversification in the food industry and a handful in the movie industry in regards to multiple versions of the same character within a close time frame...I fail to see any connection at all.

George Miller has everything to do with this? You are saying you want George Miller's Justice League to happen at the same time another Batman has been uber succesful and I am saying it isn't going to happen and it shouldn't. How is he not relevant?

No, I didn't say that. I said technically you could argue that it is not a solo film -- and references to places and things in another franchise only makes the connection that they are in the same universe. It is not quite the same as the physical appearance of a character from another franchise.

You can't argue that it isn't a solo film. The film titled Iron Man features a character named Iron Man in the lead. Same It isn't "Iron Man & A Nick Fury Cameo"

Actually it's your justifications for why there shouldn't be different actors playing the role and different interpretations of Batman that are. There is not real basis for it,

Right. The basis for my arguments should be cookies representing characters on film and 9-14 year olds as representation of the general public.