Official Justice League Status Update Thread

[misjuevos]

dc just doesn't want to look like they copied marvel's approach. they have no choice but to do it different. too bad this could have been a good step for comic book movies. opens them up to a larger universe. i like the build up to the avengers. would have been nice to see that for the jla. besides didnt they already make a jla movie that was shelved. now johns says dc characters are too big, seems like as someone said earlier "sour grapes" indeed. dc couldn't be first to the single movie universe thing so now it will be belittled by them.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

That's exactly what i meant. Waller is there for the sake of the story, but if she or even GL is referenced even briefly in Superman or Batman, then its enough for me. They dont have to use her or put pieces of the JL plot in the seperate franchises. Hell, they dont have to do anything but use the same actors.


To give you an example of a cameo that fits the story, part of Batman's personality is that he keeps tabs on everyone. So he could have a discussion with Alfred about how he monitors Arkham inmates, politicians, cops, and other heroes with various faces appearing on the screen of the batcomputer. If they ever explore that part of him, they could insert the other heroes there without trouble. Its always about how you do it.

I always felt that at least one throwaway reference would've been fine for these films. I also felt that people wouldn't have cared if Superman existed in the same world as Nolan's Batman.

 

[Boom]

^ It also showed the logistical problems associated with trying to have a shared universe. WB has the right idea because I firmly believe the whole shared universe thing is ultimately unsustainable in the long run. Like after Avengers what then? Marvel's doing so much assuming it's frightening and quite frankly reckless. It's unfair to the fan base if characters solo films are affected by the whole trying to tie everything together thing. I want a GL film, I don't want a GL film that's leading up to a JL film, I don't want hints and nods and subtle references to something that isn't important to the story at hand, I don't want characters thrown in for no reason, I want the focus to be on the character at hand. A JL film will come one day, but it doesn't need to connect multiple franchises together in order to work.

Thank you for this. I 100% agree.

 

[TheVileOne]

All that's ******** to me because WB are the ones that are rushing a new Superman reboot into production because of a lawsuit.

Too late to try and not copy Marvel's model because they ALREADY HAVE.

I like Geoff Johns and its cute that he can say that, but what exactly does he mean by it? He and Diane Nelson refuse to elaborate.

 

[The Guard]

Like after Avengers what then?

Ideally, they'll get the X-Men and The Fantastic Four back at some point, and we can have SECRET WARS: THE MOVIE.

 

[Sawyer]

Ideally, they'll get the X-Men and The Fantastic Four back at some point, and we can have SECRET WARS: THE MOVIE.

Fox would sabotage the **** out of them before they ever got the chance, unfortunately.

 

[misjuevos]

they can always go into space

 

[TheVileOne]

Ultimately if you want to do a Justice League movie with different casts at the same time as continuing all the other franchises its IMHO quite frankly stupid.

For example, if you happen to hit dynamite and make a star out of one lead actor as a character does that mean you are going to automatically want to shut out a top draw of your biggest and possibly most significant tentpole ever?

Would anyone seriously not want to see Downey as Iron Man in Avengers at some point? Just recast everyone including Downey and make it all separate?

 

[jmc]

I always felt that at least one throwaway reference would've been fine for these films.

As was done in IM1, hopefully Marvel learned their lesson from IM2, although it may be too late for Thor given filming was close to done when IM2 came out.

All that's ******** to me because WB are the ones that are rushing a new Superman reboot into production because of a lawsuit.

Too late to try and not copy Marvel's model because they ALREADY HAVE.

I like Geoff Johns and its cute that he can say that, but what exactly does he mean by it? He and Diane Nelson refuse to elaborate.

In the case of Superman WB have no choice but to rush it, much to my annoyance. As for the whole copying Marvel thing I fail to see how they've done that. Batman's in his own world, Superman and GL will be, there's no build up to JL, there's no deadlines that are set in stone, if anything WB are doing the exact opposite of what Marvel are attempting.

 

[jmc]

Ultimately if you want to do a Justice League movie at the same time as continuing all the other franchises its IMHO quite frankly stupid.

For example, if you happen to hit dynamite and make a star out of one lead actor as a character does that mean you are going to automatically want to shut out a top draw of your biggest and possibly most significant tentpole ever?

Would anyone seriously not want to see Downey as Iron Man in Avengers at some point? Just recast everyone including Downey and make it all separate?

I think WB learned from the JL:M debacle that you don't have different versions of characters being shown at the same time, the exception being maybe an animated film. JL will come one day, but it will be after the solo films have had their run.

 

[TheVileOne]

Well Geoff Johns and Diane Nelson won't even say that.

And I think the reason they won't is because they truly don't know.

 

[jmc]

In which case the focus on the solo films is the correct one. If they're unsure of what to do with JL, it's better to put it to one side for the moment.

 

[misjuevos]

they have no choice, if dc tries to follow marvel it would look like they copied them. they don't want to give marvel any credit at all. just usual business tactics. sell your product like it is the greatest thing ever. i really don't care if dc would copy marvels attempt. at least they can get ideas from each other in the future. see what works and what doesn't. 2 are always better than one going at it alone. they should remember they are trying to keep comic book movies fresh and staying with the same old format of an isolated character in his own movie is getting old.

 

[TheVileOne]

In the case of Superman WB have no choice but to rush it, much to my annoyance. As for the whole copying Marvel thing I fail to see how they've done that. Batman's in his own world, Superman and GL will be, there's no build up to JL, there's no deadlines that are set in stone, if anything WB are doing the exact opposite of what Marvel are attempting.

They're new re-allignment model of DC Entertainment they've been doing since 2009 is bascially a model that Marvel had already basically carved out in 2006. Marvel was making the big mover and shaker moves for their properties in this way first.

Johns and Nelson are being cryptic and vague and not even really saying what they are doing. All they are saying is that they are being different than Marvel, which I don't even know what the hell that means.

So basically if they are automatically shutting down the idea of saying its all separate and no Batman and/or Superman in Justice League then they are stupid. Let's say Green Lantern takes off and is the huge hit we all want it to be. What if Ryan Reynolds receives RAVE reviews of the likes of which we saw previously for Downey as Iron Man and Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. Let's say that happens do you think Johns and Nelson and the suits in charge of Warner Bros are going to automatically say WELP WE ARE STICKING TO OUR GUNS AND MAKING THIS ALL SEPARATE SO NO RYAN REYNOLDS IN GREEN LANTERN! LET'S GET COMMON ON THE PHONE! YOU KNOW THE RAPPER THAT PUT ON A **** PERFORMANCE IN TERMINATOR SALVATION AND WAS ORIGINALLY GOING TO PLAY JOHN STEWART IN JL: M!

 

[jmc]

If GL takes off we'll get GL sequels. Enough said. If the films make money then it's hardly stupid. As was mention JL will come one day, but it won't be in the form of Reynolds, or Bale, or whoever's playing Superman, or Flash or WW (maybe) in this next wave of films, so I don't really know what you're worrying about.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

^ It also showed the logistical problems associated with trying to have a shared universe. WB has the right idea because I firmly believe the whole shared universe thing is ultimately unsustainable in the long run. Like after Avengers what then? Marvel's doing so much assuming it's frightening and quite frankly reckless. It's unfair to the fan base if characters solo films are affected by the whole trying to tie everything together thing. I want a GL film, I don't want a GL film that's leading up to a JL film, I don't want hints and nods and subtle references to something that isn't important to the story at hand, I don't want characters thrown in for no reason, I want the focus to be on the character at hand. A JL film will come one day, but it doesn't need to connect multiple franchises together in order to work.

But as much as it has proven to be risky, it hasn't exactly proven to be a bad move either. All 3 of their films so far have been critcal and financially successful.

With that said, we really won't know if its worth it or not until The Avengers is actually released, though how Captain American and Thor are received will make for a better gauge.

And Avengers I'll believe Marvel will get a few more franchises back and they'll go cosmic anyway.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

As was done in IM1, hopefully Marvel learned their lesson from IM2, although it may be too late for Thor given filming was close to done when IM2 came out.

In the case of Superman WB have no choice but to rush it, much to my annoyance. As for the whole copying Marvel thing I fail to see how they've done that. Batman's in his own world, Superman and GL will be, there's no build up to JL, there's no deadlines that are set in stone, if anything WB are doing the exact opposite of what Marvel are attempting.

Like I've said before, SHIELD was an essential part of Iron Man's story and I failed to see that GA even realized that they were focusing on The Avengers, because I didn't see much actual talk on The Avengers. I saw Fury trying to help Stark at his time of need. The actual Avengers talk didn't happen until the end. Only comic fans took it as more than what it was.

And I'm pretty sure Thor will tie into SHIELD very nicely from the looks of the Comic Con trailer.

In which case the focus on the solo films is the correct one. If they're unsure of what to do with JL, it's better to put it to one side for the moment.

I wouldn't say its the correct move yet. Its a safe move, but I doubt its the only way to go in terms of these films.

 

[jmc]

But as much as it has proven to be risky, it hasn't exactly proven to be a bad move either. All 3 of their films so far have been critcal and financially successful.

With that said, we really won't know if its worth it or not until The Avengers is actually released, though how Captain American and Thor are received will make for a better gauge.

And Avengers I'll believe Marvel will get a few more franchises back and they'll go cosmic anyway.

Just because Hulk didn't flop doesn't mean it succeeded, let's not kid ourselves here. Much like the film itself, it might not have flopped, but it under performed greatly.

Like I've said before, SHIELD was an essential part of Iron Man's story and I failed to see that GA even realized that they were focusing on The Avengers, because I didn't see much actual talk on The Avengers. I saw Fury trying to help Stark at his time of need. The actual Avengers talk didn't happen until the end. Only comic fans took it as more than what it was.

People keep saying it was an essential part of the story but what would have happened if you removed those elements from the film? You remove Fury, Black Widow, the shield stuff, the whole basically giving Stark the antidote thing (which was a total cop out), what do we really lose by that stuff being eliminated? It's not really essential to the plot that started the film, in fact the first Act feels like a completely different film such is the change in plot direction. It may be essential in the comics, I'm no expert on the character so I can't really comment, but it was poorly executed on film, I don't recall the last time I saw a film that started so strongly only to then suddenly collapse half way through.

And I'm pretty sure Thor will tie into SHIELD very nicely from the looks of the Comic Con trailer.



I wouldn't say its the correct move yet. Its a safe move, but I doubt its the only way to go in terms of these films.

When you're dealing with million dollar franchises the safe option is the best option. Marvel are lucky (for the moment anyway), but law of averages says you cannot sustain hit after hit, something will crash and burn, after which big daddy Disney may step in. If continuity is important to Marvel then fine do it, but I think the way they're going about it is reckless and are doing a disservice to their fan base.

 

[misjuevos]

When you're dealing with million dollar franchises the safe option is the best option. Marvel are lucky (for the moment anyway), but law of averages says you cannot sustain hit after hit, something will crash and burn, after which big daddy Disney may step in. If continuity is important to Marvel then fine do it, but I think the way they're going about it is reckless and are doing a disservice to their fan base.

the safe option is the best option? if peter jackson would have played it safe he would only have made 1 lotr movie at a time. then he would be in the mess he is in now with the hobbit. he took a risk and made 3 films at once and they were a hit. dc took a risk with nolan's version of batman. no playing it safe is what dc did when they got singer to do superman. they figured he did good with x-men why not superman. then they decided to take a risk with nolan and had success.

 

[jmc]

Actually it was New Line that wanted to make 3 films, Jackson was content with two films, it was New Line that insisted on it being 3. The safe option is about not worrying about trying to interconnect everything and just focus on making the movie not the universe, all big budget films are risks, it's about taking calculated risks, hence why WW isn't getting a film.

 

[misjuevos]

at the end of iron man and TIH you got a glimpse of a bigger world. then in iron man 2 you couldnt just leave shield out after that. they are part of his new bigger world. i had no problems with the involvement of shield in it. if they weren't there i would have felt the previous ending was just useless.

 

[jmc]

Don't be ridiculous, of course you could have left them out.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Just because Hulk didn't flop doesn't mean it succeeded, let's not kid ourselves here. Much like the film itself, it might not have flopped, but it under performed greatly.

I counted DVDs too, in which it had gotten better buzz and was successful.

People keep saying it was an essential part of the story but what would have happened if you removed those elements from the film? You remove Fury, Black Widow, the shield stuff, the whole basically giving Stark the antidote thing (which was a total cop out), what do we really lose by that stuff being eliminated? It's not really essential to the plot that started the film, in fact the first Act feels like a completely different film such is the change in plot direction. It may be essential in the comics, I'm no expert on the character so I can't really comment, but it was poorly executed on film, I don't recall the last time I saw a film that started so strongly only to then suddenly collapse half way through.

Then you're just changing it for the sake of changing it. He was essential not only because of that stupid antidote scene, but also because he led the way for the permanent solution.

I agree that antidote thing was a total cop out and a stupid Deus Ex Machima moment that wasn't needed, but I feel like Fury was important to the plot along with SHIELD.

When you're dealing with million dollar franchises the safe option is the best option. Marvel are lucky (for the moment anyway), but law of averages says you cannot sustain hit after hit, something will crash and burn, after which big daddy Disney may step in. If continuity is important to Marvel then fine do it, but I think the way they're going about it is reckless and are doing a disservice to their fan base.

Its not reckless when it has proven to work so far. I feel like you're jumping to the wrong conclusion when despite what going on behind closed doors, Marvel looks like they know what they want from their films a lot more than DC does.

Johns seems to be going back and forth, confusing many about what DC wants to do.

 

[Boom]

Actually it was New Line that wanted to make 3 films, Jackson was content with two films, it was New Line that insisted on it being 3.

When PJ originally went to Miramax with the proposed LoTR trilogy, they wanted him to cut it down to two movies. He didn't want to do that, so he went to New Line. PJ always wanted three films.

That's my understanding of it.

 

[misjuevos]

Don't be ridiculous, of course you could have left them out.

i said after the end of iron man 1 you couldnt leave shield out. you would have wondered where they were or what was the point of that scene. also coulson and shield were in iron man 1 before the nick fury scene. they showed up to help pepper and became fodder so she could get away. them showing up in iron man 2 to cure tony is more of the same. they were apart of iron man 1 and were expected to be apart of iron man 2.