Should JLA spinoffs (GL, Flash, WW) use the same actors?

[Katsuro]

Since they're recasting Bale and Routh, and making this crapfest unrelated to the Batman and Superman solo adventures, do you think they should do the same for the rest of the team?

Should whoever they cast as Green Lantern, Flash, and Wonder Woman stick around after the JLA film and simply spin their adventures off from the JLA movie's plot, or should they establish a seperate continuity and use the JLA movie as nothing more than a way to garner public interest in the characters themselves?

My vote goes to recasting. If this movie's not going to have Bale and Routh in it, it's probably best if it's kept seperate and out of continuity from any other DC solo films. Besides, the JLA film's supposed to be using John Stewart, but hopefully the solo films will use Hal.

 

[Ita-KalEl]

I doubt that there'll be any spin-off movie.
If the JLA is a huge success, then they'll greenlit a JL sequel.
IMO they'll do like the JLA animated episodes: some episode have Superman as main character, others have WW or Flash etc.

 

[Katsuro]

Well the whole point of this movie is to gain interest in other characters, so if the movie does well there WILL be spin-offs. They're doing this so they can tell whether people want to see a Flash movie or a Green Lantern movie.

 

[The Guard]

I could have sworn the actual point of a JLA movie was to tell the story of the Justice League of America. Garnering interest in spinoffs is a bonus.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

^some dont understand the concept of the JLA, they think it's merely something where the characters make cameo appearances like the Superfriends.

When/If JLA is a hit, we're likely to get more JLA movies before they spinoff other characters into separate films.

 

[Katsuro]

I could have sworn the actual point of a JLA movie was to tell the story of the Justice League of America. Garnering interest in spinoffs is a bonus.

Lol, yeah. We all know all Hollywood cares about these days is telling good stories. Those WB execs, they're only in it for the love of storytelling.

No, if we're being technical, the actual point of this movie is to make money. Then to make more money by making more movies off the other characters.

 

[The Guard]

My point is, too many people think JLA should be some "crowning achievement" of a massive series of franchises (as unrealistic as that is). They don't see it for the singular entity it is on its own. Lost on people is that JLA isn't about "Flash's story". it's about "Flash's time with the JLA".

Do you have a problem with a movie studio wanting to make money?

 

[Jake Cassidy]

This is why Hal Jordan should be GL in the movie. He has to be the main character in a Green Lantern film.

 

[Steelsheen]

i say if the actors who plays WW, GL and Flash are pretty good, keep them for the solo efforts.

although i know this type of logical thinking is kinda rare in Hollywood....

 

[Super_Ludacris]

I thought the concept of this ill-advised project was to have spinoffs and to use the same actors no?

 

[Matt]

Don't be so sure if JLA does well, that a JLA2 will be the for gone conclussion. I'm sure a lot will be based on how certain characters test with audiences. After all, Warners will think with their pockets and what is more profitable? One sequel or five spin-offs?

 

[bunk]

Umm... all six?

 

[Matt]

Umm... all six?

Not exactly practical.

 

[GreenKToo]

^some dont understand the concept of the JLA, they think it's merely something where the characters make cameo appearances like the Superfriends.

When/If JLA is a hit, we're likely to get more JLA movies before they spinoff other characters into separate films.

I agree. they MAY have intentions of making spin-off solo films but, if J.L. does gold at the B.O., then they will make a sequel(s) instead. IMHO of course.

 

[dark_b]

of course tehy will make a sequel to JL.
if JL makes a lot of money then why would WB make origin movies?

 

[bunk]

Not exactly practical.

Oh, so the line is drawn at six? Five movies still being practical... WB obviously has no problem recasting characters, I wouldn't put it past them to make a sequel regardless of solo efforts.

 

[04nbod]

If the actors are successful in their parts then why take the gamble and recast? unless there is somethingto rule them out like bale and routh just keep them

 

[SolidRoar]

Noooooooooooooo!! I want my Hal Jordan GL movie!!!

 

[Matt]

Oh, so the line is drawn at six? Five movies still being practical... WB obviously has no problem recasting characters, I wouldn't put it past them to make a sequel regardless of solo efforts.

No, its not practical because it is unlikely you can get the actors to agree to film JLA, a solo movie for their respective characters, and then JLA 2. That would be about 5 years of their lives with nothing but JLA. And then you would want the solo movies to be franchises, like all studios would...so that is another 5 years devoted to the characters. Assuming trilogies for JLA and the solo movies, that is about 6 movies as the same character over 10 years. No actor in Hollywood, not even no names would be willing to do that.

And sure, you can recast...but if JLA is a massive success, why would Warners recast solo movies instead of using actors who were a huge hit with audiences?

 

[bunk]

No, its not practical because it is unlikely you can get the actors to agree to film JLA, a solo movie for their respective characters, and then JLA 2. That would be about 5 years of their lives with nothing but JLA. And then you would want the solo movies to be franchises, like all studios would...so that is another 5 years devoted to the characters. Assuming trilogies for JLA and the solo movies, that is about 6 movies as the same character over 10 years. No actor in Hollywood, not even no names would be willing to do that.

And sure, you can recast...but if JLA is a massive success, why would Warners recast solo movies instead of using actors who were a huge hit with audiences?

They'd have to recast for solo movies or for a sequel. Who knows which, I'd have a lot to do with the individual actor. I'm sure they'd have no qualms about doing so if it meant more money. You expect them to never make another JLA movie if the solo projects are successful. Simply for the fact they can't get the same actors?

 

[dark_b]

No, its not practical because it is unlikely you can get the actors to agree to film JLA, a solo movie for their respective characters, and then JLA 2. That would be about 5 years of their lives with nothing but JLA. And then you would want the solo movies to be franchises, like all studios would...so that is another 5 years devoted to the characters. Assuming trilogies for JLA and the solo movies, that is about 6 movies as the same character over 10 years. No actor in Hollywood, not even no names would be willing to do that.

And sure, you can recast...but if JLA is a massive success, why would Warners recast solo movies instead of using actors who were a huge hit with audiences?

thats why it would be good to have solo movies where actors can play one character. then the stuido after 3 years calls everyone back for hte last movie ....the JL movie.

the fanbase from all comic movies has at the end a chance to watch their heores to work as a TEAM.it would be the ''event''.

 

[Matt]

They'd have to recast for solo movies or for a sequel. Who knows which, I'd have a lot to do with the individual actor. I'm sure they'd have no qualms about doing so if it meant more money. You expect them to never make another JLA movie if the solo projects are successful. Simply for the fact they can't get the same actors?

Yes. They would. It could turn off a lot of the populace and lead to bombs. Warners did learn some things from the revolving door that was the Batman franchise.

 

[Matt]

thats why it would be good to have solo movies where actors can play one character. then the stuido after 3 years calls everyone back for hte last movie ....the JL movie.

the fanbase from all comic movies has at the end a chance to watch their heores to work as a TEAM.it would be the ''event''.

It would be hard to get actors who devoted nine years of their lives (because trilogy is the hot word now-a-days) to do a fourth movie. And recasts could lead to disasters.

 

[bunk]

thats why it would be good to have solo movies where actors can play one character. then the stuido after 3 years calls everyone back for hte last movie ....the JL movie.

the fanbase from all comic movies has at the end a chance to watch their heores to work as a TEAM.it would be the ''event''.

That would be cool. Unfortunately, actors tend to be flaky individuals. Also, with every property there is a different film maker with his own vision and continuity. Imagine tying to take 7 different "worlds" and meld them into one cohesive place they can all exist. It's wishful thinking imo.

 

[bunk]

Yes. They would. It could turn off a lot of the populace and lead to bombs. Warners did learn some things from the revolving door that was the Batman franchise.

You mean as far as casting? Those changes weren't solely responsible for tanking those movies, not even close.