Would you agree that one of these reasons is that a JLA film is not the next logical step immediately following BB, TDK and SR and preceeding Batman III and Man of Steel?That a project of that scope might benefit from more build up from (what should be) it's supporting series'?
In a perfect world, I'd like to see 3 Batman films, 3 Superman films, 3 Wonder Woman films, 3 Green Lantern films, 3 The Flash films, and The Martian Manhunter and Aquaman films before Justice League. And I'd like to see those other franchises continue beyond just 3 films. But how realistic is that, to assume all those movies will a, happen, and b, be successful enough to call for a JLA franchise? And if all those movies happened, would the stars have anything LEFT for JLA? Or even want to make it?
Is this the logical next step? That's a loaded question, as JLA strikes me as a sort of "window" project. I fail to see how JLA conflicts with the Batman and Superman movies all that directly.
You referred to WB "bending over backwards/halting their creative processes," terms which, to me, imply that WB would somehow be compromising their artistic integrity to appease certain people. Which is, ironically, exactly what they're doing by making JLA now.
I'm referring to the creative process (preproduction, basically). Not neccessarily referring to the studio itself as a creative entity. WB puts up the cash, and the people WB hires "create". None of them should halt production of the JLA for the reasons some have stated here (I.E, confusing people).
I don't think anyone here has any delusions that Bale or Routh will last more than 3 or 4 films. That's not the issue. Recasting is an inevitability. What people are taking issue with is the idea of premature and temporary recasting.
If it's going to happen anyway, what's the big deal? If Bale and Routh signed deals RIGHT NOW to do JLA it'd be easier to wait.
If WB waited to make JLA and Bale has already hung up his cape by then, so be it. It will still be following his stint, not running concurrent to it. Which is...the logical thing to do.
So we should abandon plans to make a hell of a franchise on the off-chance Bale MIGHT still want to do it? Sorry, not good enough.
Did DC Comics wait until Batman's career had run its course to introduce the concept of the JSA/JLA in the DC Universe? Why is the timing of this such an issue with some of you? For instance, when I want to watch BATMAN BEGINS five years from now, I will put the DVD in. When I want to watch JLA, I'll put the DVD in. Then, if I feel like it, I can go back and watch SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE. Who CARES which was made first? It doesn't really have to affect the story or film!
The only ones that have an apparent need for immediacy (immediate money) are those at WB.
So? They're in a business. It's their job to make money for their company.
You don't think a mere year apart isn't "right on top of each other?"
No. I don't. There are hundreds of films in the span of a year. Two DC Comics ones wouldn't sway me.
That's almost as close as you can get as far as blockbuster films featuring the same character are concerned.
And you think this is a problem because...
Here is the simple reason why I think JLA has major potential for sabotaging Nolan's Batman series. The Batman series is, by definition, incredibly smaller in scope than JLA. It's no slight on Nolan's part, that's just the world Batman lives in.
To go from THE DARK KNIGHT, in which Batman deals with a cerebral terrorist like the Joker to JLA, in which he'll likely face some sort of alien robot army, and back to BATMAN III, in which he'll face Two-Face in what will likely be a much more personal story (at least compared to a "save the world" scenario.)
And the issue here is...what, exactly? In the comics, Batman has gone from fighting smaller, more personal threats to helping the JLA defeat globe-threatening ones and back for YEARS. Has it affected anything on either side of the fence? Hell no. In fact, it's part of his mystique. That he can do it all, adapt to any situation, etc. As long as his motivations and actions remain constant, it works very well for the character. It's not like Batman 3 will mention the events of the JLA film.
Ever hear of "save the best/biggest for last?" After Batman does his part to save mankind in JLA, anything he does in following Nolan movies will be incredibly small potatoes.
Bunk. That's just not how it works. Do you consider The Joker small potatoes? Does the JLA? I saw Batman face alien conquerers, but that paled in comparison to the death of Jason Todd.
Just imagine if, in between two of the Spider-Man movies, he joined the Avengers and saved the world from Thanos. It's pretty hard for anyone to care about his problems with Mary Jane after that.
Then why does anyone still read Spider-Man comics, my friend? Why do readers still manage to care about his problems with Mary Jane?
How could anyone give a damn about the escalation of violence and madness going on in Gotham City when the entire world is at stake?
You know...we're at war, and I still care about the kid who has to deal with abuse. Figure it out. How does anyone care about those things in the context of the comics, when there are things like the Green Lantern Corps? Answer: Because focusing on one thing for a little bit does not make another disappear. The key to this is to not make JLA about Batman focusing on Gotham. And to not make Batman 3 about Batman's time with the JLA and how grand in scale it was. I should think that would be obvious.
Then what would be the point to having a Batman solo comic and then have him in JLA's comic? You have the same thing, save the world in one book but only save Gotham in the other. If you remember when Legends of the Dark Knight #1 came out they were all original Batman stories and had nothing to do with the regular series. The same thing with All-Star Batman. I know that is just comics but the same can be done in movies. Movie fans are not that stupid, they will get that there will be times when Batman has bigger things to take care of. in Begins stopping Ra's when he did saved the world not just Gotham. Ra's planed to do the same thing in every city Batman stopped him before he could.
You could say the same thing about any JLA member.
How can The Flash go from saving the world to saving Central City?
How can Superman go from saving the world to just fighting crime in Metropolis?
How can Green Arrow go from battling aliens to fighting for the rights of the common man?
Now how about this for a minute. How can American GIs go from fighting for our freedom against terrorists to working at a 9-5 job in an office or at Wal-Mart, or any other job? They don't equal out but they happen.
So don't worry the movie will make sense.
Exactly. To me, this is really kind of a silly, groundless worry
