Official Justice League Status Update Thread

[ClarkLuther55]

It's also kind of hard to "smash them together" when only one of them has a viable solo movie series so far. If things had gone to plan, Singer's Superman would've been a home run, with a sequel already. Same thing with Whedon's Wonder Woman. Then next year we would get Green Lantern, and DC/WB would've been well on their way to a real Justice League movie.

 

[jmc]

Hell yeah baby. Close thread.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

^ This.

 

[MadVillainy]

Or you can just change the title to Justice League Discussion thread

 

[jmc]

May as well just start a new thread then. This thread is 6 and half thousands posts of nothing now.

 

[MadVillainy]

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=322266&highlight=Justice+League

 

[Willi Berg]

Is any of the recent JL "news" really that new or surprising. How difficult would it be to jam in a JL story with the same characters when stories are still being told in the solo movies. And when these solo movies are launched then we could possibly get a JL movie further down the line, one not set up by references in earlier solo movies. This has been discussed repeatedly here and it's pretty much what most people expect.

 

[Mr. Earle]

When asked about the possibility of a JL movie in the NY Comicon, Johns said that DC's characters are larger than Marvel's, so they will keep the franchises separate instead of smashing the heroes together.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. If they knew how to do it, they have done it already, like they almost did with JL Mortal.

 

[Willi Berg]

As said, how can they do it if there is only one viable solo movie franchise so far, and they are still trying to figure out how to do the solo movies. WB/DC also never gave any of the solo movie directors any instructions to consider the shared universe or put in references to other superheroes.

Johns didn't really have to mention Marvel that way, he would've known that would raise the ire of Marvel fans. I personally don't care if they don't copy Marvel.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Nolan is finishing his trilogy so who knows where the Batman movie franchise will be in the future. GL and Superman... well we'll just have to see how good the new movies will be. Its better that Johns denied any plans so that fans would calm down and they'd have all the time in the world to hatch their plans.

Personally, if GL and Superman turn out to be good, i'd love to see a JL movie that binds all the franchises together. WW, Martian Manhunter and Aquaman will never get their own movies anyway, so they ll be introduced in the JL movie.

Basically all it needs is a new Batman movie franchise that is more like the comics, so that we can accept him in the JL. I simply cannot see Nolan's bat-swat in the JL. Some fans will argue that the Batman of Year One is the same one in JL, well yeah, but there are so many stories out there. This has to feel solid, and fit the general tone of the universe. Batman will have to be more of a batgod, fight more unrealistically and have more unrealistic villains for me to imagine him in a base on the moon. Him fighting a Joker that is not even permawhite or a Ras that might or might not be immortal doesnt help at all. But that's just me.

 

[Willi Berg]

A problem with the JL movie is they also have to consider making sequels to the solo movies. First they have to wait to see if the initial movie is a success, then they have to come up with a story for the sequel/s. A JL movie story can interfere with that. Green Lantern has three movies in mind, a story building up. Then they have a long term plan with the Flash franchise as well. They're thinking trilogies, something I don't see in Marvel because of The Avengers.

Comparing it to Marvel- Iron Man got two movies before Avengers; Captain America, Hulk and Thor get one each...Iron Man 2 spent quite a bit of time with a Avengers/shared universe subplot and look at the subsequent falling out between Favreau and Marvel (the stories coming out about how he felt IM2 was rushed into production and how he had to fit in the Avengers subplot). Iron Man 2 suffered as a result of the Avengers subplot- the story and the relations between its director and Marvel.

I guess they will be looking to relaunch Batman after Nolan. I'm sure there will be a lot of takers, and I can see that change in direction and allowing for stuff like Ra's being an immortal etc.

 

[Mr. Earle]

A problem with the JL movie is they also have to consider making sequels to the solo movies. First they have to wait to see if the initial movie is a success, then they have to come up with a story for the sequel/s. A JL movie story can interfere with that. Green Lantern has three movies in mind, a story building up. Then they have a long term plan with the Flash franchise as well. They're thinking trilogies, something I don't see in Marvel because of The Avengers.

Comparing it to Marvel- Iron Man got two movies before Avengers; Captain America, Hulk and Thor get one each...Iron Man 2 spent quite a bit of time with a Avengers/shared universe subplot and look at the subsequent falling out between Favreau and Marvel (the stories coming out about how he felt IM2 was rushed into production and how he had to fit in the Avengers subplot). Iron Man 2 suffered as a result of the Avengers subplot- the story and the relations between its director and Marvel.

I dont think the individual franchises will suffer. It will be just like the comics. Each franchise does its thing and the JL book its own. There could be some cameos or maybe Waller and Checkmate could appear in all of them and then play a big part in the JL film (like Fury and Shield).

They dont have to go too much out of their way to set up the JL movie. They could even do that in a World's Finest or Trinity movie. And to be honest, IM2 didnt suffer because of the Avengers if you consider that politics and superhero teams are to Tony what being a loner is to Batman. The movie had many problems but the Avengers werent one of them. People are just used to watching a plot where the hero just deals with the villain and kisses the girl. IM2 showed a Tony Stark who is part of a bigger universe and who deals with many issues at once.

 

[jmc]

^ 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.

 

[Mr. Earle]

^ 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.

I guess they learned their lesson with IM2. Cap and Thor dont seem to have as much Avengers crap. In any case, i had no problems with it because they handled it like the Ultimates. IM came first, and the world responded to him. Now Thor will land on earth and off course Shield and every government on earth will investigate. Then Cap and so on. In my opinion IM2 was about Tony and not Shield. Shield just helped him out the way Gordon helps Batman.

However, I agree that it would be harder to do this with the DC franchises. Waller and Checkmate are already in the GL and they have nothing to do with a JL film. They could appear or be referenced in the other movies if its appropriate. I'm sure Luthor will approach the government and try to turn it against SM, so why not use Checkmate like the DCAU had Cadmus? Other heroes could be referenced too, like the Gotham reference in SR. Was that so bad?


EDIT: I wanted to remind everyone that Shield and the Avengers are part of Tony's supporting cast. People have this idea that because they happen to be superheroes, they are just guest stars like Superman visiting Bruce in the cave. Well they re not. Running superhero teams and doing politics is what Tony does every day. So its very natural for Shield to appear and help him, or even Tony leading it one day. So what now? Where are the Avengers that screwd up the plot of IM2? Just that one scene at the end then.

 

[jmc]

I don't want to get into the whole IM2/Avengers nonsense again, I've had my say on it, what i will say as though is that it makes no difference how important an element in the comics is, if it's executed poorly on screen it renders that element useless. If something only makes logical sense to a small part of the audience then your screwing the movie, it becomes a Watchmen like scenario where the fans are filling in the blanks for themselves and the rest of the audience are left wondering 'WTF?'.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I don't want to get into the whole IM2/Avengers nonsense again, I've had my say on it, what i will say as though is that it makes no difference how important an element in the comics is, if it's executed poorly on screen it renders that element useless. If something only makes logical sense to a small part of the audience then your screwing the movie, it becomes a Watchmen like scenario where the fans are filling in the blanks for themselves and the rest of the audience are left wondering 'WTF?'.

I agree, we've had this discussion a million times before when IM2 first came out. t:

Look, just because Favreau didnt execute it right, it doesnt mean that it doesnt work. See Mr Freeze in B&R and Mr Freeze in BTAS or comics. Favreau introduced Shield in IM1 and nobody had any problems back then, but since this movie wasnt so linear and didnt handle its many subplots so well everyone is all "TEH SHIELDS IS RUINING MAH MOVIE!"

 

[Willi Berg]

Yeah, it's about the logistics too. Marvel looks to have lost Favreau, there was that lowballing of salaries because they were thinking of signing up actors for 9-picture deals etc... DC has to worry about securing their actors and directors for three movies, they can't worry about a JL movie at this point with all that. The logistics of getting a guaranteed JL movie at the end of it at a certain time is probably just too much trouble to think about. Not to mention that Wonder Woman is going to be on TV now and who knows what her relation to the movies are now, as well the attempt to get Aquaman going. And then there's Batman after Nolan leaves and Superman and his lawsuit.

Waller and Checkmate are already in the GL and they have nothing to do with a JL film. They could appear or be referenced in the other movies if its appropriate. I'm sure Luthor will approach the government and try to turn it against SM, so why not use Checkmate like the DCAU had Cadmus? Other heroes could be referenced too, like the Gotham reference in SR. Was that so bad?

I like that Johns and co. made changes to GL so that Waller could be included, as well as Parallax, Krona etc. because, even though the movie doesn't have to reference other heroes or setup a JL movie, these characters are part of the larger DC universe anyway, and can be used for other future solo movies or a teamup movie. The same way the comics can use these characters for their individual stories, while they also have played a part in other character's stories. But if recurring characters like Waller are used within the individual stories, it doesn't mean it has to set up a particular story for the JLA movie, since that hasn't been figured out yet. That's when it starts taking away from the solo movie's story, trying to be all about setting up a teamup movie. But if it serves the story, I wouldn't mind seeing something like Checkmate or S.T.A.R. Labs used in more than one movie.

I still believe a JLA movie is a possibility down the line. When solo movies are established, when they see how WW has done on TV, when they finally decide if making an Aquaman movie is possible. But obviously, what Johns and co. are stressing right now is that it is not a priority.

 

[jmc]

Look, just because Favreau didnt execute it right, it doesnt mean that it doesnt work. See Mr Freeze in B&R and Mr Freeze in BTAS or comics.

That's not the point, it's still failed to work. Doesn't matter how good a concept is on paper, if it doesn't translate well on screen you've done nothing but waste time.

Favreau introduced Shield in IM1 and nobody had any problems back then, but since this movie wasnt so linear and didnt handle its many subplots so well everyone is all ''TEH SHIELDS IS RUINING MAH MOVIE!''

Come on man, the Shield stuff in film one was so in the background it was barely noticeable and for good reason, there was no assurances IM would take off, film two it's smack bang in the middle of Act 2, god help anyone who didn't seen the end of credits cameo, Fury just comes out of nowhere, it's an apples and oranges scenario, it may not of ruined the movie on it's own, but it sure as hell played it's part. I don't blame Favreau at all for IM2, he wanted an extra year and Marvel weren't willing to give it to him.

 

[jmc]

But obviously, what Johns and co. are stressing right now is that it is not a priority.

I think what it really boils down to is just how much trouble the concept of a single universe on film is. It's never seamed like a concept that is feasible for film, TV yes, but not film, I wonder if Marvel have actually pondered the consequences if the remaining pre-Avengers films don't do well, what's the plan B exactly? Are they just assuming things will fall into place? That's what I want to know, especially considering filming will already be underway for Avengers next year before Thor and Cap are released, I'm really surprised more Marvel fans aren't concerned about how reckless they are being with the production scheduling of these film. I'd be screaming like no tomorrow if it was WB doing this.

 

[Willi Berg]

Even if the Marvel movies (pre-Avengers) do well, we've already seen evidence of them being compromised because of this overall plan and deadline for a teamup movie i.e. Favreau.

 

[jmc]

I've just never understood what the hell all the rush is with them. It's not like the characters are going anywhere.

 

[The Guard]

I don't think Johns means there will never be a Justice League movie. I'm fairly certain we will see one once Marvel's AVENGERS franchise is more or less done.

I think he just means that there will be three Batman films, at least two Superman, Green Lantern and Flash movies and at least one Wonder Woman and Aquaman movies that can stand on their own and aren't designed largely to bring the characters into a team environment before they approach THE JUSTICE LEAGUE.

Whereas Marvel, at least in terms of its own studio films, will now have had two Iron Man films, one Hulk, Captain America and Thor film apiece, and are now going full tilt into THE AVENGERS without say, another Hulk, Captain America and Thor movie, a SHIELD movie, HAWKEYE, ANT MAN, etc. Marvel, as a studio, kind of IS smashing them all together right out of the gate. And maybe that's the way to go with Marvel's characters.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I like that Johns and co. made changes to GL so that Waller could be included, as well as Parallax, Krona etc. because, even though the movie doesn't have to reference other heroes or setup a JL movie, these characters are part of the larger DC universe anyway, and can be used for other future solo movies or a teamup movie. The same way the comics can use these characters for their individual stories, while they also have played a part in other character's stories. But if recurring characters like Waller are used within the individual stories, it doesn't mean it has to set up a particular story for the JLA movie, since that hasn't been figured out yet. That's when it starts taking away from the solo movie's story, trying to be all about setting up a teamup movie. But if it serves the story, I wouldn't mind seeing something like Checkmate or S.T.A.R. Labs used in more than one movie.

I still believe a JLA movie is a possibility down the line. When solo movies are established, when they see how WW has done on TV, when they finally decide if making an Aquaman movie is possible. But obviously, what Johns and co. are stressing right now is that it is not a priority.

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.

That's not the point, it's still failed to work. Doesn't matter how good a concept is on paper, if it doesn't translate well on screen you've done nothing but waste time.

Come on man, the Shield stuff in film one was so in the background it was barely noticeable and for good reason, there was no assurances IM would take off, film two it's smack bang in the middle of Act 2, god help anyone who didn't seen the end of credits cameo, Fury just comes out of nowhere, it's an apples and oranges scenario, it may not of ruined the movie on it's own, but it sure as hell played it's part. I don't blame Favreau at all for IM2, he wanted an extra year and Marvel weren't willing to give it to him.

Like i said, it just wasnt executed properly. It doesnt mean that it cant be done better by someone else.

And i agree with the part in bold.

 

[BestGirl]

I think what it really boils down to is just how much trouble the concept of a single universe on film is. It's never seamed like a concept that is feasible for film, TV yes, but not film, I wonder if Marvel have actually pondered the consequences if the remaining pre-Avengers films don't do well, what's the plan B exactly? Are they just assuming things will fall into place? That's what I want to know, especially considering filming will already be underway for Avengers next year before Thor and Cap are released, I'm really surprised more Marvel fans aren't concerned about how reckless they are being with the production scheduling of these film. I'd be screaming like no tomorrow if it was WB doing this.

They'll just bill The Avengers as another Iron Man movie, I'm sure.

I've just never understood what the hell all the rush is with them. It's not like the characters are going anywhere.

I don't know, maybe they're afraid of Downey aging, or that the superhero trend will shortly run its course. What I want to know is: what are they going to do after the Avengers if Thor and Cap aren't popular? They'll have one more IM movie and then what?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

They'll just bill The Avengers as another Iron Man movie, I'm sure.



I don't know, maybe they're afraid of Downey aging, or that the superhero trend will shortly run its course. What I want to know is: what are they going to do after the Avengers if Thor and Cap aren't popular? They'll have one more IM movie and then what?

I believe its this. Marvel only has superheroes unlike DC, though DC still makes the argument pretty neutral since DC's non Superhero films the latter part of the decade haven't made much money and they've been awful.