Official Justice League Status Update Thread

[jmc]

From the Variety story:
"The studio is ramping up production after being hit hard by the writers strike.
The three-month walkout kept the studio from developing its bigger properties.
"We were impacted, there's no denying that," Horn says. "We really needed screenplays and we were just dead in the water. It hurt (tentpoles) the worst."

That's a key statement, I think.

Actually that statement is of some concern, he last thing they need to do is rush thing and screenplays just to get back on track with their tentpoles.

 

[Double Down]

A lot depends on what they mean by "ramping up."

 

[Webhead2006]

From the Variety story:
"The studio is ramping up production after being hit hard by the writers strike.
The three-month walkout kept the studio from developing its bigger properties.
"We were impacted, there's no denying that," Horn says. "We really needed screenplays and we were just dead in the water. It hurt (tentpoles) the worst."

That's a key statement, I think.

Yea i see that too being a key statement but i think horn was saying cause of the writers strike and then the possible SAG strike it caused their studio and others to be left in the dust sort a say and they dont have the ammount of films/scripts they would want to have this year/next year.

 

[Double Down]

Getting the movies made would involve many of Warner Bros.' other divisions -- including TV, homevid, consumer products, online and vidgames -- that would create tie-in projects for release around the films. "They need a lot of lead time and it all needs to be choreographed," Robinov says.

It's not hard to imagine why it takes them so long to get these movies out.

 

[TheVileOne]

Showtime. To paraphrase a great man:

TEAR DOWN THIS FORUM!!!!

Also strikes rush things into production. That's the way of things. GI JOE got greenlit very quickly once the strike started because Paramount desperately needed another big release for 2009. Now they have Transformers 2 AND GI JOE all in the same summer. That's huge for them, not only that they gave GI JOE a fatter budget than the first Transformers.

Dragon Ball, same thing. Fox rushed it into production during the strike. They need more stuff for 09.

I properly predicted during the strike and suggested that WB just might push Harry Potter to 09. The reason, people were SO sure that Justice League was still happening because without it they would have none of the big releases they needed for 09. And no of course they wouldn't do Harry Potter 6 in summer 09. Of course they wouldn't. Hate to toot my own horn, but . . . that's exactly what they did.

And it's a smart move. Harry Potter has proven that it can play over the summer season as well as holiday season. It does strengthen what's looking like an overall weaker summer next year. WB is going to get as much mileage out of this franchise as possible. You know they don't want to it to end. That's why they are turning it into 8 movies instead of 7. WB desperately needs sure fire hits like Harry Potter in such a risky industry.

 

[BATZARRO WWD]

Getting the movies made would involve many of Warner Bros.' other divisions -- including TV, homevid, consumer products, online and vidgames -- that would create tie-in projects for release around the films. "They need a lot of lead time and it all needs to be choreographed," Robinov says.

The Brave and the Bold?

 

[The Major]

Vile:

Wonder what WB is going to depend on when the HP films finally end? They can't stop that from happening.

My first guess would be Batman.

 

[TheVileOne]

Uh . . . let's see . . .

Batman . . . Batman . . . and Batman . . . more Batman . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

And a little Green Lantern


. . . and The Hobbit .

 

[jmc]

Vile:

Wonder what WB is going to depend on when the HP films finally end? They can't stop that from happening.

My first guess would be Batman.

Batman, The Hobbit, 3 Harry Potters, they really don't have to worry about another DC property for a few years.

 

[biolumen]

Batman, The Hobbit, 3 Harry Potters, they really don't have to worry about another DC property for a few years.

While they may not have to, I think they'll want more than just Batman 3 in the next few years. My guess is one DC film per year, and if we're very, very lucky, occasionally two a year. It now looks more and more like a GL film for 2010, then Batman 3 for 2011. 2012 and beyond, who knows.

If they're as high on the GL script as we've been told, then they probably won't want to wait too long before trying to capitalize on it's potential. If they think it can make mega numbers, they'll do it sooner rather than later.

 

[Webhead2006]

More likely then not if gl/green arrow are high on dc/wb lists to happen it would be good to have them both for 2010 release and film during 09. If not then do gl for 2010, and maybe save ga to go along with batman 3.

 

[TheVileOne]

Did I mention Batman . . . instead of Justice League?

 

[jmc]

While they may not have to, I think they'll want more than just Batman 3 in the next few years. My guess is one DC film per year, and if we're very, very lucky, occasionally two a year. It now looks more and more like a GL film for 2010, then Batman 3 for 2011. 2012 and beyond, who knows.

If they're as high on the GL script as we've been told, then they probably won't want to wait too long before trying to capitalize on it's potential. If they think it can make mega numbers, they'll do it sooner rather than later.

Honestly, we'll be lucky to get more than one film within the next three years, as much as they say the comic adaptations are priority, I'm seriously doubtful it's at the top of WB to do list, they've probably got a dozen other potential film franchises up their sleeve. I think a great deal of this whole 'DC summit' will end up as just talk with no action, the status quo will remain, DC is sadly bound to WB and so too are many of the comic worlds biggest names. I would be very surprised if WB releases a statement saying something like 2010 SR2 and GL, 2011 Batman 3, 2012 FL and WW.

 

[biolumen]

jmc, while I don't necessarily agree with your prediction, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it turns out to be true.

IESB has a word or two to say about all this.

DC to Go the Way of Marvel and Justice League Death Confirmed
Written by IESB Staff

Saturday, 16 August 2008

Apparently so, and announcements could possibly be made within a month about some reorganizing.

IESB reported earlier this week that slated Justice League director George Miller had been pulled from the Justice League project to potentially work on another superhero film in the pipeline, Green Lantern.

On the heels of that announcement comes a trade post confirming the death of Miller's Justice League,

One high-profile property is "Justice League" which Warner Bros. had hoped would start production before the writers strike.

But given that it unites Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, the Flash, Green Arrow, Aquaman and Martian Manhunter, the studio is trying to figure out how such the pic (cast with younger actors) would affect its existing Batman and Superman franchises -- and whether the script respects how the characters play off each other in the DC universe.

To put it simply: the studio doesn't want to piss off the Comic-Con contingent.

And we all know if they had run with the script and cast they had it was going to be like watching a train wreck.

"We're not off the notion of a Justice League," [Jeff] Robinov says. "There's a massive interest and knowledge in the comicbook industry and it takes time to sort of catch up and understand the characters and the history, where they've intersected with each other and what their worlds are. That's part of the education that we're going through."

"These are big, iconic characters," [Greg] Noveck says. "So when you make them into a movie, you'd better be shooting for a pretty high standard. You're not always going to reach it, but you have to be shooting for it. We're going to make a Justice League movie, whether it's now or 10 years from now. But we're not going to do it and Warners is not going to do it until we know it's right."

So basically, 'let's not *beep* anything up' is what he's trying to say.

WB head Alan Horn admitted, “If you do it wrong, you're dead, you're out of there."

So where does that leave DC and their superheroes?

...as Warners is readying to revamp how DC's properties are developed -- changes that could be announced within the next month.

DC doesn't have a separate film division the way rival Marvel does, which is moving forward with an "Iron Man" sequel and adaptations of Thor, Captain America and the superhero team-up The Avengers for 2010 and 2011.

"We're having a lot of internal discussions on it," Horn says. "We haven't committed to any change at DC at this point," adding that both Warners and DC are committed to turning "the properties into viable movie product in an intelligent way so that we introduce them like planes on a runway. They have to be set up the right way and lined up the right way and all take off one at a time and fly safe and fly straight."

Green Lantern is certainly ready to go, with a stellar script (reviewed recently here at IESB), this franchise is a hit waiting to happen.

In any case, Greg Berlanti, Marc Guggenheim and Michael Green's Green Lantern seems to definitely be a “go”, we were contacted by WB and the filmmakers in hopes to squash any further plot leaks considering our script review was entitled “Part 1”...which begs the question, what's in “Part 2”??!!

Well, we agreed to not leak any further plot points and story details to calm the ruffled feathers, but one thing is for certain, Green Lantern it is a well-written action-packed tight story ready to bring Green Lantern and Hal Jordan to the forefront of superhero cinema lore.

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5322&Itemid=99

 

[KBX]

That Variety article..... you know..... I could have sworn I read something like that 6, 7, 8 years ago..... hm

maybe I am getting dejavu or something like that....

 

[KBX]

btw why is IESB confirming the death of a JL movie... I mean didn't they do that months ago?

 

[biolumen]

btw why is IESB confirming the death of a JL movie... I mean didn't they do that months ago?

That was an unconfirmed confirmation. This is a semi-confirmed confirmation. I'm sure IESB will have a similar article when the unequivocal confimation of their confirmation is confirmed.

 

[biolumen]

Found this on Anne Thompson's Variety blog.

Marvel vs. D.C.

In a front page story in this Sunday’s Weekly Variety, Marc Graser explores Warner Bros.’ plans to get its classic DC characters onto the bigscreen. Or rather, its plans to make plans.

Batman is soaring, but the future of Superman on film is uncertain. The Justice League movie has been pushed back and it’s hard to imagine this Batman team being too enthusiastic about seeing their gritty, realistic take on the character alongside Superman and Wonder Woman. Greg Berlanti’s Green Lantern script has been well-received at the studio, but not yet greenlit.

Meanwhile, rival Marvel has launched its own studio, had a smash with Iron Man and a successful reboot of The Incredible Hulk, and announced four more pictures, introducing film versions of at least two more of their star characters, Thor and Captain America.

This begs the question: Why has Marvel been able to move so decisively to put its properties on film while Warner Bros seems to be stuck in a perpetual ponder? The answers are sometimes paradoxical.

Paradox #1) Marvel is better off without a studio cousin. DC seems to have a natural advantage, given its corporate relationship with Warner Bros. That was one reason Warner invented the modern comicbook movie in the 70s, with Superman, and re-established in the 80s with the Batman franchise.

But Warner has to pass on any DC character before it can go to another studio, and since no Warner exec wants to be the one who passed on a property that becomes a blockbuster for another studio, they almost never pass.

Wonder Woman, Batman and Superman have all been successful in primetime TV, but only Superman has been a perennial on TV.

Marvel, on the other hand, had only one TV hit, Bill Bixby in The Incredible Hulk. And for film, it could only license its characters, getting poor results at first with cheapie Captain America and Fantastic Four films.

But as visual effects improved and it became possible to make these films look great, better filmmakers came to the material: Sam Raimi to Spider-Man at Sony; Bryan Singer to X-Men at Fox. Those films, along with Fantastic Four and even Hulk at Universal, revealed a trend.

“I was an investor in Marvel,” Marvel chairman David Maisel told Variety, “and realized that with the films that had been released through 2003, there were nine PG-13 movies that had averaged $200 million in domestic box office.”

By licensing the characters, Marvel was able to prove the worth of its intellectual property and act on that information.

Now, says Maisel, “We don’t need anything from a third, outside party. We get to just focus on making the best movies possible.”

Which brings us to the next paradox:

2) As the smaller company, Marvel has the size advantage. Getting Warner Bros. going is like turning an oil tanker. Marvel is much more nimble. Also, as a smaller company, it has more to gain from hit films. Maisel says that with a loyal fan base and a rich trove of characters and stories, “I realized that if Marvel was able to get the financial upside, the company could double or more its market value just through that move and good execution.”

He was right. At the beginning of August 2006, Marvel stock was at 17.54. That month Maisel presented his plan to launch a studio. Two years later, the stock had more than doubled, though it has fallen back slightly since. Its market cap is now around $2.7 billion.

By contrast, Time Warner’s market cap is more than $52 billion — so huge it’s hard for any movie, or even a franchise, to move its stock.

Paradox #3) Being young and inexperienced as a movie company, Marvel has no fear. Or less fear, anyway, than the studio that gave the world Catwoman and Batman & Robin.

They were aware that an Iron Man movie and a Hulk film were not sure things, so they hedged their bets with conservative “no-recourse” financing. It’s a structure usually used for projects like real-estate development, where the property being developed also serves as collateral for the loan, but the lender can’t come after any other assets if the project fails.

Even if its own Iron Man and Hulk pics had failed, they’d still have franchses licensed to Sony and Fox. But when Iron Man opened strong, they announced their own four-picture slate, with each film tied to the next, climaxing in the July 2011 bow of The Avengers.

They’ve never experienced the humiliation – not to mention the recriminations and career consequences – of a high-profile flop. Warner has, and so is more careful.

Paradox #4) Marvel is in a better position to make good comicbook movies because they’re a comicbook company first, a movie studio second.

Until The Dark Knight, Warner showed all the signs of old-fashioned thinking about comicbook pictures. Comicbooks started as kid stuff. Batman began on film as a cheap serial. Superman began as cartoons. They were not the stuff of A-pictures. Nor did Warner think in terms of building a universe in which the characters could cross over.

Mavel, though, owned these characters, loved them, and had a creative vision for them.

“I think the huge advantage,” says Maisel, “is that this is our complete focus. We’re people who love our jobs and plan to be in the jobs for many many years, if not decades. And our characters come from a universe that’s so connected, and now that we have control of actually creatively making the films and greenlighting the movies.

“We’re able to plan out the future in that way. It’s was an idea that Kevin and I came up with a couple of years ago, let’s try and make all the movies not stand alone but connect in the same continuity and the same universe, which was a new idea for superhero films. That wouldn’t have been able to accomplish that if we didn’t have the studio created the way it has been.”

That also means they get to function like an old-fashioned studio, putting the company’s agenda ahead of any star or filmmaker. So though Jon Favreau might like to direct both 2010’s “Iron Man 2” and 2011’s “The Avengers,” Marvel won’t spread the films out to accommodate him.

A.O. Scott in the NYT has wondered if the superhero film may have peaked this summer. Perhaps. But if we have learned one thing from the growth of Comic Con, it’s that there are vast numbers of fans of these properties who have so far only been able to see them in their minds’ eye. When a first-rate filmmaker puts a superhero in a movie, they will show up to watch.

Oh, and by the way, there is one other, oft-neglected “universe” of characters under a single studio’s auspices: The Universal horror characters.

The problematic Van Helsing left Dracula, Frankenstein and the Wolf Man needing a reboot and now the Mummy franchise seems to be sputtering. But a new Wolf Man is on the way, with Benicio del Toro in the title role.

As for any corporate strategy for the characters, a U spokesman could only say “I don’t think we’re at a place where we can confidently articulate that.”

http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/08/marvel-vs-dc.html

 

[jmc]

^ Some interesting points about Marvel in that piece, Marvel has advantages, but they are risky ones, it's not always going to be wine and roses for Marvel, law of averages says they will have flops, the question is with no other type of movies to fall back on could one really bad one cripple their film division? It's not unheard of for a single bad film to ruin a movie studio, even today. My hope for Marvel is that Iron Man doesn't lead them into a false sense of security, however their plan to have another 4 movies out so soon when some don't even have directors attached or finished scripts is a little concerning. It's understandable why WB are so cautious about launching into a bunch of these type of film, they know how bad things can get when they fail.

 

[Gotham]

I really hope IESB is right and they've started to make a move with the Green Lantern film.

 

[Webhead2006]

Nice iesb article for green lantern. I do really hope gl can make it to the screens. And very good article from variety about dc/ and marvel.

 

[dnno1]

Actually that statement is of some concern, he last thing they need to do is rush thing and screenplays just to get back on track with their tentpoles.

A lot depends on what they mean by "ramping up."

I think that was a general statement regarding all of their films that they wanted to produce this year. I think there is some pressure to get films out because that is their bread and butter and not generating revenue affects their bottom line. Outside of their DTV releases and the X-Men Origins film Marvel Entertainment might be hurting next year.

 

[protocida]

IESB is so pathetic when it comes to ''Justice League'' ...

 

[I Am The Knight]

Hands up anyone who seriously thinks WB will release details of all the DC films within a month.

 

[The Major]

Uh . . . let's see . . .

Batman . . . Batman . . . and Batman . . . more Batman . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

And a little Green Lantern


. . . and The Hobbit .

I wasn't just talking now, I mean the future if they're ever in the same situation.

Batman and GL are serial franchises. They can make new movies about them for decades without running out of material.

The Hobbit is one story. Once that's made it's over.

The HP films will stop once all adaptions are finished. Unless they can convince Rowling to do more but I doubt they've got anything she wants to change her mind.