Official Justice League Status Update Thread

[dnno1]

They'll only get that $$$ if they wisely execute their [adaptations]. Putting Batman in every movie is just a temporary solution at best. They need to know why Nolan's Batman films worked and follow procedures with fit other franchises with it.

Putting Batman in every movie is akin to putting Gene Hackman in the Superman films. They tend to do better with his presence. I think my reply was to the question "why shouldn't we wait until the Batman films are finished?". My answer was because there is money to be made right now (or as soon as it can be). Getting into the how and understanding Nolan's Batman is getting a little off the point and subject to another discussion.

When did the genre die out before? What were the reasons?

Good question. From my recollection, there have been 3 distinct periods starting as early as 1989. See this wiki for a brief synopsis.

It'll never reach its pinnacle as long as their are good stories to adapt and Hollywood does a good job adapting them.
Exactly why would the genre reach its pinnacle due to industry politics? Certainly other genres are affected by those conditions.

One could say that, but in truth, the first era of comic book films basically died because of politics. Don't think that it couldn't happen again.

All that means is that the studios weren't able to do more super-hero films that year. It doesn't mean interest has died off. TDK should be enough to encourage the studios to make more comic adaptions in the future.

What was that saying again? "When the cat's away...." The absence of comic book films just leaves the opening for another genre to take its place. Next year is the opportunity for someone to produce a hit films that may change the trend. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

I disagree.

people aren't going to forget TDK and Iron Man exist the second they leave movie theatres. The excitement will build back up when the public have something to see like their sequels or comic book movies just as good as they are.

I am not talking about today. I am talking about years down the line. People may not be interested in these types of films 5 years from now. In addition, we may not have Superman.

Doesn't it depend on the adaption and the people making it?

Certainly. But if you will notice most of the superhero films fall into that category. I am sure that it was a little cheaper to make TDK because the re-used some of the props for the film.

What would be that reason?

That it (the Justice League film) would be more expensive to produce in the future (circa 2013).

Agreed. They don't need to worry about Batman. They need to get the other super-hero franchises off the ground. They don't need JL to do that for them.

It will be more expensive that way. Look at what happened to the Hulk, the Punisher, Daredevil et. al.

 

[solidsnake86]

No offence dnno1 but your probably one of a handful of people that want batman in a JL movie within the next two years. If a JL movie is made and it sucks that will definately affect the batman franchise if its not completed. I don't think WB and frankly most fans want that. Second, why exactly do you care what money WB spends on the movie and how expensive it will be, its not your money. If they feel that they can make money off of it they will invest.

 

[dnno1]

No offence dnno1 but your probably one of a handful of people that want batman in a JL movie within the next two years. If a JL movie is made and it sucks that will definately affect the batman franchise if its not completed. I don't think WB and frankly most fans want that. Second, why exactly do you care what money WB spends on the movie and how expensive it will be, its not your money. If they feel that they can make money off of it they will invest.

That's a bunch of baloney. Batman has survived the criticism of "Batman and Robin" and well as "Catwoman". It's just a baseless supposition that it would be affected by a bad Justice League film (if there is such a thing with Batman Supeman and Wonder Woman in it). You have not proof that that is the case.

 

[Michael Corleone]

That's a bunch of baloney. Batman has survived the criticism of "Batman and Robin" and well as "Catwoman". It's just a baseless supposition that it would be affected by a bad Justice League film (if there is such a thing with Batman Supeman and Wonder Woman in it). You have not proof that that is the case.

No one said anything about it not surviving. But it would certainly hurt in respect to the franchise of JL, not Nolan's though.

Batman took several years to recover from B&R and Catwoman never had any real connection to Batman other than she was known as a villian. The franchise survived yes, but it wasn't easy to come back.

 

[BATZARRO WWD]

No offence dnno1 but your probably one of a handful of people that want batman in a JL movie within the next two years. If a JL movie is made and it sucks that will definately affect the batman franchise if its not completed. I don't think WB and frankly most fans want that. Second, why exactly do you care what money WB spends on the movie and how expensive it will be, its not your money. If they feel that they can make money off of it they will invest.

On the other hand you are caring about a Justice League movie affecting a Dark Knight sequel, wich is essentially the same as caring how much money WB makes out of it.

Now, since we're borderline theorical, let's play out a scenario.

August 2011: Justice Leagued has bombed. The public, for whatever reason, has rejected it. What will Warner do?

A: Continue planning (hell, at this point, it's more like continue filming, right?) a sequel to the box office hit "Dark Knight"

B: "Oh, no, Superhero movies are no longer viable!"

Now, the Dark Knight's success has been well documented on these pages. What would stop them from making a sequel? A lot of folks will go see it, even if it's just a mockery of a film(wich is unlikely...but just sayin'...) If Nolan won't do it they'll get someone else. So, yeah, no need to worry about Nol-Bat 3. It's safe. Ain't no need to gang up on Justice League..

 

[solidsnake86]

No proof, BB's box office performance is proof enough, you really are that desperate to see this movie that you will accept anything.

 

[The Major]

Putting Batman in every movie is akin to putting Gene Hackman in the Superman films. They tend to do better with his presence.

I can understand that.

It is short term gains, though. Lex Luthor has become played out with the public. They want new enemies. Superman has them, WB needs to use them.

I think my reply was to the question "why shouldn't we wait until the Batman films are finished?". My answer was because there is money to be made right now (or as soon as it can be).

It will be short term money unless they execute it wisely.

Over-saturation can blow up in their faces easily. Then what are they going to do? The money will not come in as much anymore and they’ll risk having to restart Batman again. When they should be focusing on starting up other super-hero franchises so they won’t just have to rely on Batman and Superman saving their bacon.

Nolan's Batman movies weren't only successful because Batman was it. That was just one piece of the puzzle. Once they notice which tactics worked then they can duplicate it with versions which fit other non-Batman films. Studio execs taking over just to exploit short term lowest common denominator plans will just revert whatever progress Nolan's made with Batman. The money train will end and they'll have only themselves to blame.

Getting into the how and understanding Nolan's Batman is getting a little off the point and subject to another discussion.

Okay.

Good question. From my recollection, there have been 3 distinct periods starting as early as 1989. See this wiki for a brief synopsis.

Interesting.

One could say that, but in truth, the first era of comic book films basically died because of politics. Don't think that it couldn't happen again.

Okay.

What was that saying again? "When the cat's away...." The absence of comic book films just leaves the opening for another genre to take its place.

WB should have thought of that ahead of time. It’s not like they don’t have any other super-hero franchises to adapt.

That’s what they get when they put all their eggs in two baskets. Now they’re paying for it.

Next year is the opportunity for someone to produce a hit films that may change the trend. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

Agreed.

I am not talking about today. I am talking about years down the line. People may not be interested in these types of films 5 years from now.

Okay.

In addition, we may not have Superman.

This wouldn't have been as much of a problem if WB had done a better job on their other super-hero franchises.

They have wasted every opportunity so far.

Certainly. But if you will notice most of the superhero films fall into that category. I am sure that it was a little cheaper to make TDK because the re-used some of the props for the film.

Can't they use equipment from Nolan's Batman and other films for other comic franchises? Surely the equipment from TDK could be used on The Question, Birds of Prey, Kate Spencer Manhunter and Huntress movies.

That it (the Justice League film) would be more expensive to produce in the future (circa 2013).

They can adapt cheaper DC franchises in the mean time.

When the prices go down JL will be there to make it.

t will be more expensive that way.

It can also pay off big time.

Look at what happened to the Hulk, the Punisher, Daredevil et. al.

Blade, Iron Man, X-men, Hellboy.

Why settle for only 2 successful super-hero franchises when they could have 4 or 6 or more?

 

[solidsnake86]

I do care about Batman more than the Justice League and you know what, a lot of people will agree with me seeing as how batman is probably dc's most popular character. I don't think anyone here wouldn't want to see a justice league film, but I would say most want to see it done properly. With the previous casting suggestions its no wonder why they aren't greenlighting this film. People want quality films.

Look at spider-man 3, if that movie was actually half decent theirs no doubt it would have made more money, if you think that movie wont have an effect on a 4th spider-man movie your dreaming.

 

[TheVileOne]

I'm suspicious that dnno1 could perhaps be Baghdad Uncle Bingo Bob back from the dead.

 

[KBX]

Why settle for only 2 successful super-hero franchises when they could have 4 or 6 or more?

And this is a main reason why I don't have a problem with a JL movie in the near future. It is not like we are having a GL or Flash movie in a year, or one being very successful right now. The WB had opportunity after opportunity to get one out, but no, still Bats and Sups. The only issue right now is the Bats franchise, but thats barely an issue cause when/if this franchise starts up, Bats will now be ending.

The WB doesn't want a GL/Flash/WW film unless it can make Ironman money. I personally think if everything goes right, it can be done. But a lot has to fall in place, A LOT. They don't care about making a DC comicbook movie unless it can bring in $$$$. IF a Flash movie made 175 mil, and everyone loved it from the critics to the fans, thats a failure in their eyes.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

The WB doesn't want a GL/Flash/WW film unless it can make Ironman money. I personally think if everything goes right, it can be done. But a lot has to fall in place, A LOT. They don't care about making a DC comicbook movie unless it can bring in $$$$. IF a Flash movie made 175 mil, and everyone loved it from the critics to the fans, thats a failure in their eyes.

Lets face it, most people did not think Iron Man could make "Iron Man" kind of money. But Marvel Studios got fully behind the movie, got the right talent behind and in front of the camera and put a lot of care and quality into the product. Then they promoted the hell out of it. And the end result was a massive sucess.

WB could potentially have a big franchise in GL. But they have to be willing to fully throw themselves behind it and stop being so tentative. Don't half ass it, hire top quality for the film, stick to the material (no Jack Black spoof) and put their full support behind it. Because the general audience won't believe in the product unless the studio does first.

If they put the effort, care and quality into the film and then put a strong promotional campaign together, they could really be in store for another strong DC superhero franchise. Only WB's lack of imagination can hold back what can be done with the character of GL.

 

[The Major]

And this is a main reason why I don't have a problem with a JL movie in the near future.

Do you think if JL fails it won't affect the other solo film franchises negatively?

It is not like we are having a GL or Flash movie in a year,

They won't ever get made unless they're green lighted first.

or one being very successful right now.

Those films aren't going to make be successful unless they're made.

The WB had opportunity after opportunity to get one out, but no, still Bats and Sups.

And when they do they self destruct to often.

The only issue right now is the Bats franchise, but thats barely an issue cause when/if this franchise starts up, Bats will now be ending.

They'll still make Batman films no matter what.

The WB doesn't want a GL/Flash/WW film unless it can make Ironman money. I personally think if everything goes right, it can be done.

This wouldn't be as much of a problem had they bothered actually supporting these characters enough so the public will flock to their movies. They all have potential. They need to use cartoon series to get the public interested or at least to know the basics for films being made. Get a WW, GL, GA, Flash cartoon series in motion to build interest. They have to be good, of course. Bad cartoons would have the opposite effect.

After the movie wait a few years then do it again with updated versions. Keep them in the public's consciousness. Have them guest-star in other cartoons within the DCU when they don't have solo cartoons.

WB either can't see it or can't be bothered making enough of an effort to get it right. They are slowly improving.

But a lot has to fall in place, A LOT.

No different from any other film they make.

They don't care about making a DC comic book movie unless it can bring in $$$$.

To an extent. I doubt they know even the major franchises enough to really know that for sure. I doubt they know their minor franchises at all.

IF a Flash movie made 175 mil, and everyone loved it from the critics to the fans, thats a failure in their eyes.

They should be seeing it as an oppotunity. A first step in a film franchise which could join Batman and Superman as it grows.

There's no reason a franchise like that couldn't make Iron Man money in the sequels.

Flawless:

Agreed.

 

[dnno1]

It is short term gains, though. Lex Luthor has become played out with the public. They want new enemies. Superman has them, WB needs to use them.

It 's true that the Luthor character is getting a little trite, but as for short term gains it wasn't so much that but rather having an actor that could carry the film (meaning draw an audience). Both Hackman and Kidder were in the film for that reason. On that topic, they could (and maybe should) try to introduce new villians in a Superman sequel, but I think whomever is cast should be an A-list actor. Brandon Routh (although expected to be Superman) can not carry the film by himself.

Over-saturation can blow up in their faces easily. Then what are they going to do? The money will not come in as much anymore and they’ll risk having to restart Batman again. When they should be focusing on starting up other super-hero franchises so they won’t just have to rely on Batman and Superman saving their bacon.

The market was able to sustain close to 10 different franchises back in the 1940's. Who know if they couldn't sustain more today.

Nolan's Batman movies weren't only successful because Batman was it. That was just one piece of the puzzle. Once they notice which tactics worked then they can duplicate it with versions which fit other non-Batman films. Studio execs taking over just to exploit short term lowest common denominator plans will just revert whatever progress Nolan's made with Batman. The money train will end and they'll have only themselves to blame.

I don't think there is a big secret on how to make a good film. The hard part is trying to get a good story and keep in under budget.

WB should have thought of that ahead of time. It’s not like they don’t have any other super-hero franchises to adapt. That’s what they get when they put all their eggs in two baskets. Now they’re paying for it.

I think both they (and DC) already have. They know what they want to adapt and they also know that these characters are relatively weak (compared to the Superman and Batman franchises). They have been consistently saying that they want to get it right and have been successful with most of the films they have produced, but I am not sure if they are confident with the others outside of Green Lantern and Justice League. Apparently it looks like they are featuring the DC Super Villains with Green Arrow in an ensemble cast in "Super Max" as another approach so we will see how that works out. I think we should trust them with the decisions they are making since the have all the experience (more so than Marvel) and know the best thing to do for themselves.

This wouldn't have been as much of a problem if WB had done a better job on their other super-hero franchises.

They have wasted every opportunity so far.

I think you might want to go back and look the past 30 years of DC super hero films. The have had fewer financial failures than Marvel.

Can't they use equipment from Nolan's Batman and other films for other comic franchises? Surely the equipment from TDK could be used on The Question, Birds of Prey, Kate Spencer Manhunter and Huntress movies.

I don't know. I think that version of Batman (along with his car and costume) might be copyrighted to that production company (Syncopy Films?). They would have to get permission from them (or whomever it is) before they could use it.

They can adapt cheaper DC franchises in the mean time.

They've got to have an idea that they can sell first.

When the prices go down JL will be there to make it.

Prices don't go down (remember, inflation).

It can also pay off big time.

There is no guarantee of that (its a 60:40 chance unless you have good info that it will sell).

Blade, Iron Man, X-men, Hellboy.

Why settle for only 2 successful super-hero franchises when they could have 4 or 6 or more?

Blade III, Ghost Rider, Hellboy II. It's not a surefire thing. It's smarter to feature the characters with your popular franchise characters and then see which ones stick. You can go with those in solo films and lower your risk of losing a lot of money.

 

[The Major]

It 's true that the Luthor character is getting a little trite, but as for short term gains it wasn't so much that but rather having an actor that could carry the film (meaning draw an audience).

Both Hackman and Kidder were in the film for that reason.

Agreed.

On that topic, they could (and maybe should) try to introduce new villains in a Superman sequel, but I think whomever is cast should be an A-list actor. Brandon Routh (although expected to be Superman) can not carry the film by himself.

Agreed.

I think both they (and DC) already have. They know what they want to adapt and they also know that these characters are relatively weak (compared to the Superman and Batman franchises).

I agree with what you’re saying but I don’t think the situation is as black and white as that.

Many of those characters haven’t gotten any exposure beyond being in comics. Others have been lucky to get cameos in tv shows like Smallville and JLU but it hasn’t gotten any of them cartoon/tv show spin-offs of their own or movies green lighted.

The top franchises have been in cartoons and tv shows over the years but none of them have been able to reach the potential creatively like in the comics. The most recent, WW and Flash, were decades ago. Technology and the tv medium has adapted enough to let these franchises get much closer to that potential in live action unlike back then.

Updates and exposure could make any of these franchises much stronger given the proper treatment. Especially the higher rung franchises like Green Lantern, Flash and WW.

They could also work on low budget direct to dvd/made for tv live action adaptions, too. They must be of quality, of course. This type of thing has to be shown possible with series like Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, Buffy and Angel. Of course this type of feature wouldn't have the quality or scope a big budget movie would but surely WB could make some decent adaptions here. Especially with street level heroes like Huntress, Black Canary, Kate Spencer Manhunter The Question. They should be able to make a decent Blue Beetle (Jaime Reyes or Ted Kord versions), Wonder Woman or The Demon though they would have to lower the power scale down naturally.

They’ll never not be weak until WB allows them to get stronger instead of just doing stuff with Batman and Superman. Those franchises are already rock solid. They’ll be fine taking a rest for a while. This could allow DC/WB to actually grow more franchises to equal them in success or build them up to be worthy franchises which can be successful just not on that scale.

They have been consistently saying that they want to get it right

Saying and doing are completely different things.

and have been successful with most of the films they have produced,

Most of their films have failed to produce a single new successful DC film franchise to match Batman and Superman. Those two have had serious mistakes, too.

but I am not sure if they are confident with the others outside of Green Lantern and Justice League.

See my previous response to the weak franchises.

Apparently it looks like they are featuring the DC Super Villains with Green Arrow in an ensemble cast in "Super Max" as another approach so we will see how that works out.

I hope that succeeds.

I think we should trust them with the decisions they are making since the have all the experience (more so than Marvel) and know the best thing to do for themselves.

That experience isn’t perfect. That said I do hope they keep on improving with each adaption and take the lessons learned from both successes and failures to move forward not backward with their new comic adaptions.

I think you might want to go back and look the past 30 years of DC super hero films. The have had fewer financial failures than Marvel.

They still have had a shaky relationship with Batman and Superman and haven't succeeded in making a third film franchise from DC.

Marvel has gotten Blade, Iron Man, X-men, Fantastic Four, Hulk and Spider-man franchises into being financially successes. They would still have had Blade and X-men if Fox didn’t make the franchises become persona non-grata with awful third movies, still they did well since the audience came in from the previous films good reputations.

That’s Marvel – 6, WB/DC – 2.

FF was awful but it still managed some financial success. If these movies had actually been good it might have been Spider-man level IMO.

DD did well enough to get a spin-off.

Punisher is on its third film, too.

I don't know. I think that version of Batman (along with his car and costume) might be copyrighted to that production company (Syncopy Films?).

Okay.

They would have to get permission from them (or whomever it is) before they could use it.

Makes sense.

They've got to have an idea that they can sell first.

You mean a script and/or director who wants to do it or the actual concept itself? If you mean the latter DC has no shortage of.

Prices don't go down (remember, inflation).

My mistake.

There is no guarantee of that

Their whole industry is about taking risks.

(its a 60:40 chance unless you have good info that it will sell).

How do they judge that, exactly? There can be so many variables with any movie.

Blade III, Ghost Rider, Hellboy II.

Didn't Blade 3 do extremely well in theatres? Isn't GR getting a sequel? Did Hellboy 2 make its money back? It had a lower budget then the first movie. I do agree it was a huge mistake to release it so close to TDK. It should do better on dvd IMO.

It's not a surefire thing. It's smarter to feature the characters with your popular franchise characters and then see which ones stick.

They need to rely just on movies for this.

Animated movies, direct to dvd projects and animated series could be used to introduce the public to lesser known franchises for potential future films.

It is long term strategy, of course.

Getting the public interested in a franchise is going to take time unless a successful movie gets made no matter what it is. It’s got to be cheaper then making a multimillion dollar movie, though.

You can go with those in solo films and lower your risk of losing a lot of money.

That tactic I like.

 

[KBX]

Lets face it, most people did not think Iron Man could make "Iron Man" kind of money. But Marvel Studios got fully behind the movie, got the right talent behind and in front of the camera and put a lot of care and quality into the product. Then they promoted the hell out of it. And the end result was a massive sucess.

WB could potentially have a big franchise in GL. But they have to be willing to fully throw themselves behind it and stop being so tentative. Don't half ass it, hire top quality for the film, stick to the material (no Jack Black spoof) and put their full support behind it. Because the general audience won't believe in the product unless the studio does first.

If they put the effort, care and quality into the film and then put a strong promotional campaign together, they could really be in store for another strong DC superhero franchise. Only WB's lack of imagination can hold back what can be done with the character of GL.

Marvel Studios can do that. Thats all they have, while WB has countless other movies than their DC characters. I seriously think the only reason they own the DC comics is for Bats and Sups. What makes Ironman, and Batman so easy to sell, well cause their down to earth, with problems an average person can have. Now with GL, your bosses is little blue men, and your main problem is an alien who has the exact same powers you do, just with the color of yellow. Dont get me wrong I think Hal, Kyle, and Jon are cool characters.

I really don't think the WB likes to have supernatural villians/aliens in their movie. When I think about it all the successful comic book movies out there never had an alien/supernatural character as the main villian.

Now, Flash well i can see where there can be less of a problem with this. But some people may think it may be hard for him to carry a movie by himself. I really don't know how to think about Flash, I mean yeah he suppose to be funny and run all day, but what else?

 

[KBX]

Do you think if JL fails it won't affect the other solo film franchises negatively?

It won't effect bats or sups. The others, well they can say, "YEAH, the solo movies are coming" and still 7 years little we are still waiting...

Those films aren't going to make be successful unless they're made.

Remember how Kilmer/Clooney bats supposedly killed the franchise, well Batman movies will always be there. Same as Bonds, etc. Now if a GL/Flash flops, there is a good chance we won't see another one for a very long time...

They'll still make Batman films no matter what.

Oh I agree

This wouldn't be as much of a problem had they bothered actually supporting these characters enough so the public will flock to their movies. They all have potential. They need to use cartoon series to get the public interested or at least to know the basics for films being made. Get a WW, GL, GA, Flash cartoon series in motion to build interest. They have to be good, of course. Bad cartoons would have the opposite effect.

In this era, what were DC most successful animated tv shows? You have Batman: TAS and Superman: TAS and one more.... wait for it.... wait for it... Justice League/JLU

WB either can't see it or can't be bothered making enough of an effort to get it right. They are slowly improving.

Improving on Batman franchise? yes... others? no so much...

They should be seeing it as an opportunity. A first step in a film franchise which could join Batman and Superman as it grows.

I agree, but no bats or sups in the DC comics universe, WB would not care at all. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if they sell some of these characters to other studios just as Marvel did, before they made it big.

There's no reason a franchise like that couldn't make Iron Man money in the sequels.

I dunno, I guess the potential, is there, but a lot has to go right, I mean near perfect...

 

[ray243]

Seriously, you fans sound so desperate...

I mean come on, what is wrong with waiting for a few more years until the movie comes out?

You guys have waited pretty long already!


Technically speaking, there is a JL tv movie in the 90s, and given that alot of you just want a JL film to come out, no matter how bad it will be...you can be happy with the tv movie.


You want the movie to be good, or do you want the movie to make money? Which is better?


Even though the batman movies will be made...a bad movie involving batman MEANS there will be a stall between the batman films.



Moreover, if the JL movie fails, what makes you think audience will still watch a character spin-off?


The X-men movie spin-off can work because the audience liked the x-men movies in the first place.


If the audience do not like it, forget about selling a spin-off.

 

[The Major]

Seriously, you fans sound so desperate...

Hollywood isn't desperate to make comic adaptions? Batman and Superman have been very good to WB's bottom line by themselves. They do come from the comic medium.

It's the same with Sony with Spider-man and Fox with X-men.

I mean come on, what is wrong with waiting for a few more years until the movie comes out?

I can wait for JL. It shouldn't stop WB from adapting lesser known cheaper franchises, though.

You guys have waited pretty long already!

We've waited this long because technology in Hollywood has finally started to catch up with the stories that can be made in comic books. They've also have gotten film makers who are talented enough and respect the source material. Many of the crappy adaptions don't do that.

It's Hollywood whose catching up to comics not the other way around.

They still have a long way to go, too.

Technically speaking, there is a JL tv movie in the 90s, and given that alot of you just want a JL film to come out,

We want a good JL movie to come out along with other franchises that Hollywood has taken to long getting around to.

Why should we be grateful to Hollywood for terrible adaptions like that JLA tv show pilot when we know they can do better?

no matter how bad it will be...you can be happy with the tv movie.

Have you paid attention to the posts here? A lot of people don't like Miller's JL because they fear it will be awful.

You want the movie to be good, or do you want the movie to make money? Which is better?

Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Sin City, the Spider-man trilogy, Superman 1 and 2, Batman '89, X-men 1 and 2, Blade 1 and 2, V for Vendetta, Hellboy, Iron Man, 300, Road to Perdition, Ghost World, American Splendor.

It's in Hollywood's best interest to make good adaptions. They tend to do well and comic books are full of stories and franchises which could do very well on screen if they are willing to make those franchises get to their potential.

Even though the batman movies will be made...a bad movie involving batman MEANS there will be a stall between the batman films.

Batman can take it.

Lesser franchises can't since WB still thinks one shot is all they need to know if a franchise can succeed or not. Even when they make crappy movies which don't come close to realizing its creative potential or it doesn't resemble the franchise at all. They need to really stop doing this.

Moreover, if the JL movie fails, what makes you think audience will still watch a character spin-off?

The public wouldn't have seen their potential on film yet.

WB has done this for Batman and Superman, they haven't for many others. The potential doesn't stop being there once you ignore it.

The X-men movie spin-off can work because the audience liked the x-men movies in the first place.

The X-men movies were well done which were quite faithful to the spirit of the comics. You do realize the characters it showed were from comics, right? Singer didn't make up the Wolverine character while shooting the movie.

Them being a quality movies is a huge factor in its success, too. They can make quality stories based on comics, you know. The medium is filled with them.

If the audience do not like it, forget about selling a spin-off.

Have you thought that maybe the audience could like the premise but the adaption is crappy? The audience won't like an adaption if Hollywood makes their premise unappealing because they can't do a good job showing its potential on screen.

 

[The Major]

It won't effect bats or sups. The others, well they can say, "YEAH, the solo movies are coming" and still 7 years little we are still waiting...

Exactly why I fear JL sucking. It's to big a risk to the other franchises.

Remember how Kilmer/Clooney bats supposedly killed the franchise, well Batman movies will always be there. Same as Bonds, etc. Now if a GL/Flash flops, there is a good chance we won't see another one for a very long time...

Yup.

Lack of vision really sucks.

In this era, what were DC most successful animated tv shows? You have Batman: TAS and Superman: TAS and one more.... wait for it.... wait for it... Justice League/JLU

WB needs to give their lesser franchises equal treatment to those in cartoons and tv shows. There's no reason a Wonder Woman, Flash or Green lantern animated series couldn't succeed with that in their corner.

Do you count Legion and Teen Titans cartoons as successful? They were pretty good.

Improving on Batman franchise? yes... others? no so much...

Watchmen looks good, but you're right it's still questionable whether they can do the same for the lesser franchises.

They have done very well with one shot story and non-super-hero adaptions like 300 and V for vendetta. Did WB make Sin City?

I agree, but no bats or sups in the DC comics universe, WB would not care at all. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if they sell some of these characters to other studios just as Marvel did, before they made it big.

I don't see that at all. With WB it seems with their DC properties if they can't make them no-one can.

I dunno, I guess the potential, is there, but a lot has to go right, I mean near perfect...

True.

Still, they should try their best. They should use that "hundred years experience in the movie biz" I keep hearing about.

 

[The Major]

Marvel Studios can do that. Thats all they have,

They can do licensed material. They have done this regularly over the decades in the comics.

Marvel has had relationships with other licensed properties like The Dark Tower, Red Sonja, Conan, Shadow, Doc Savage, G.I. Joe, Anita Blake and more.

No reason they can't do this with films in the future.

while WB has countless other movies than their DC characters.

Marvel is the only comic company I know of which has a library of characters close to it in volume.

I seriously think the only reason they own the DC comics is for Bats and Sups.

Agreed.

What makes Ironman, and Batman so easy to sell, well cause their down to earth, with problems an average person can have.

Batman and Iron Man are far form the only characters in either company who people can relate to. They're the tip of the iceberg. If other characters got that kind of treatment in movies they'd be just as well known. In fact it wasn't that long ago that Iron Man was one of them.

Now with GL, your bosses is little blue men, and your main problem is an alien who has the exact same powers you do, just with the color of yellow. Dont get me wrong I think Hal, Kyle, and Jon are cool characters.

You're over thinking this. Don't think of it in terms of being alien and cosmic. There's more depth to it then that which could appeal to normal people.

The Guardians are hardcore control freaks with god complexes who always think they're right. I'm sure people have had bosses like this or know overzealous people who use this behavior.

Sinestro's a good cop gone bad. He believes he's doing the right thing but who has questionable methods in protecting everybody. That type of thing is very relevant in today's era with the Bush administration just like TDK did. He could also be compared to Denzel Washington's character in Training Day.

I really don't think the WB likes to have supernatural villians/aliens in their movie.

Which is really short sighted. All it takes is a good version to show the public. Having super-natural villains didn't stop Buffy or Xena being successful. WB has access to people who can make this happen.

Superman is an alien. They don't seem to have a problem with him.

When I think about it all the successful comic book movies out there never had an alien/supernatural character as the main villian.

How about Rasputin and the Elder Gods in Hellboy?

Zod was a great villain in Superman 2. He was an alien.

Now, Flash well i can see where there can be less of a problem with this. But some people may think it may be hard for him to carry a movie by himself.

Why?

I really don't know how to think about Flash, I mean yeah he suppose to be funny and run all day, but what else?

Depends on the Flash you're talking about. It's a fascinating and complex mythos with many great characters in it.

Here's some basic information about the Flash franchise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_(comics)

 

[Dark Knight]

That's a bunch of baloney. Batman has survived the criticism of "Batman and Robin" and well as "Catwoman". It's just a baseless supposition that it would be affected by a bad Justice League film (if there is such a thing with Batman Supeman and Wonder Woman in it). You have not proof that that is the case.

Dude, why did you avoid solidsnakes question?

 

[Dark Knight]

It's posts like these that make you look like a joke.



http://www.superherohype.com/news/spider-mannews.php?id=7573


And I love how you write "has only made $406 mil". And do you think TDK's run at the BO is over? Guess what, news gets much worse for you, because it is predicted this film is headed towards $500 mil!

Your posts truly are a joke, first cookies and now trying to mouth off when you yourself don't know the facts.

It's a waste of time and energy talking to this dnno1 guy.

He is out of it....

 

[Dark Knight]

If dnno1 is out of his element and does not know what he is talking about, than how do you know for a fact that 1 movie will make more than another movie that has not even hit the theaters yet? Sure you can predict and I personally think Miller is a pretty good director. Im more than willing to give the guy every opportunity especially when we truly know nothing about this project.

As you said if its all about money than its smart for WB to make both the batman sequel AND JL.



You know its a mediocre movie? Thank you so I don't have to waste my money on it. This movie could out in 2010, but I think it may be 2011.

So let me get this straight, if somehow this movie gets made, and they use a Batman. Bale, Hammer, someone else doesn't matter. And they use him in a few scenes, not as many as the other characters, that will make TDK sequel lose 100 million, possibly more at the box-office? come on now.

Mediocre compared to TDK?

Yep! I'll put my money on a Nolan directed Batman movie with Bale as Batman against a director who hasn't done a live action film in god knows how long with someone named Armie and Hammer as Batman.

Since TDK has become a BIG success with fans, critically AND with the Box Office...I am VERY confident that Millers JLA movie with Arm and Hammer and DJ Corona would not be able to compete with TDK.

 

[Webhead2006]

YEa hopefully with what TDK has done for wb they are really looking into make jla a whole new film and drop miller and go in an all new and hopefully better direction.

 

[Dark Knight]

Seriously, you fans sound so desperate...

I mean come on, what is wrong with waiting for a few more years until the movie comes out?

You guys have waited pretty long already!


Technically speaking, there is a JL tv movie in the 90s, and given that alot of you just want a JL film to come out, no matter how bad it will be...you can be happy with the tv movie.


You want the movie to be good, or do you want the movie to make money? Which is better?


Even though the batman movies will be made...a bad movie involving batman MEANS there will be a stall between the batman films.



Moreover, if the JL movie fails, what makes you think audience will still watch a character spin-off?


The X-men movie spin-off can work because the audience liked the x-men movies in the first place.


If the audience do not like it, forget about selling a spin-off.

Nah....dnno1 sounds desperate....