Justice League Should Warner do the opposite of Marvel re:JL?

They'd have to film them back to back, and that would be a long shoot, which would still mean 2015 at earliest for release.

EDIT- For example, when The Hobbit was a two parter, began filming in March 2011 for release in December 2012.
 
Well one upon a time I doubted that they would ever make an Avengers movie or superhero films that would be taken seriously and beloved by audiences or even more Star Wars movies this time last year.

So now I'm willing to believe anything that comes my way like the reports of MOS 2 next year and JL the year after.
Yeah but that has nothing to do with scheduling a film. There's no way they can get a movie out until 2015, so JL would have to be at least 2 years after, so 2017 would be the earliest for that.
 
I think they should follow a similar route that Marvel took, but I honestly would introduce a few characters in Justice League, like Batman.

I would have set up that though, through out the other individual movies, there is a mention of this Bat-Creature in the shadows who use to only be in Gotham but has since started to spread around. Maybe have "Bruce Wayne" cameo a few times like in the Man Of Steel sequel to visit Metropolis since thats where his satellite crashed and meets "Clark Kent", stuff like that.

Then after the JL movie we can have a new rebooted solo film for whoever, no more origin movies though for characters like Batman since we have plenty lol
 
Last edited:
I don't think everyone needs solo movies before World's Finest/JLA. The only solos that are necessary imho are Flash and Wonder Woman.

-The Flash (if a script already exists) hopefully gets announced at Comic Con for a December 2014 release

-Wonder Woman hopefully gets announced at Comic Con for a March, April, or May 2015 (before the onslaught of Avengers 2, Star Wars, etc...

-Man of Steel 2 for December 2015 release

THEN a JLA movie with just 5 initial members can work (Supes, Bats, WW, Flash, and re-introduced GL in that movie - hopefully John Stewart) for May 2016 release
in the JL film have jordan die and the ring choose stewart. maybe have it happen warly in the film. maybe have him die at the hands of the main villain. maybe the ring chooses stewart for a reason connected to the main storyline
 
No, they aren't a false equivalence. All of those films are (in the traditional sense) superhero team pics under the comic book genre. Just because Marvel's "Avengers" was a big success, doesn't mean that it is not equivalent to an "X-Men" (a billion dollar franchise) or the up coming "Guardians of the Galaxy" franchise. They do join forces and work towards a common goal (that is the definition of a team and each individual member has a choice not to join -- Lord knows Logan did). Let's not try to find subtle differences just to excuse what has happened. Marvel has proven that you could go the solo route, and spin off characters form an ensemble film, which means that using the solo film approach in the run up to a team film is just a matter of style more than necessity. End of story.

This has nothing to do with "subtle differences" and "a matter of style". A superhero "mash up" like the Avengers, in which heroes with unique origin stories, individualized costumes and completely separate lives join forces has as much in common with X Men as that FOX series has in common with Mystery Men. Throwing a group of actors into a JL stew would show a profound lack of respect for the DC characters and look like a weak attempt to piggyback on a formula that Marvel put the time, money and effort into doing correctly. I can give you 1.5 billion reasons why the MCU formula works. Can you come up with a reason why a "JL first" approach would work, other than Batman?
 
in the JL film have jordan die and the ring choose stewart. maybe have it happen warly in the film. maybe have him die at the hands of the main villain. maybe the ring chooses stewart for a reason connected to the main storyline

hmmm....maybe a Parallax (the proper one, not that **** we got in the actual movie) possessed Sinestro can kill Hal, or well make everyone think Hal is dead, this would leave the door open for Hal's return since its not exactly the same as how it happened in the comics, more reversed then anything lol
 
No, they aren't a false equivalence. All of those films are (in the traditional sense) superhero team pics under the comic book genre. Just because Marvel's "Avengers" was a big success, doesn't mean that it is not equivalent to an "X-Men" (a billion dollar franchise) or the up coming "Guardians of the Galaxy" franchise. They do join forces and work towards a common goal (that is the definition of a team and each individual member has a choice not to join -- Lord knows Logan did). Let's not try to find subtle differences just to excuse what has happened. Marvel has proven that you could go the solo route, and spin off characters form an ensemble film, which means that using the solo film approach in the run up to a team film is just a matter of style more than necessity. End of story.

Its only equivalent if you ignore the actual important aspects of the stories. Its not about the genre, its about whether the characters have a common premise and story.
 
What warner should do is look at how Marvel made their films, not what order they should do. And I'm talking about Marvel's own production company not studios that have purchased rights to Marvel's properties. Marvel has consistently made great entertaining comic book films and has done so on a regular basis. Warner has been hit or miss at most. I believe the key to Marvel's success is that it is more creatively driven.

There isn't studio executives in the way who give out mandates on how the films should be. Instead they have a clear vision and understand of the project and just get directors, actors, and artist who not only are enthusiastic about the product and know why the characters are stories are so great. But more importantly they can show why that is, to people who have never heard of them and get them to love it just as much. Marvel's greatest achievement there is Captain America, a corny character from the 40's and Marvel took that character and made a general audience love him. I was amazing how many people I knew was now a Captain America fan, the toughest character from the avengers to sell and they did it.

Take Green Lantern for example. It's pretty faithful to the mythology, the characters don't derive much from the source. But the movie itself was just so poorly put together. The acting was off, the dialog was terrible, the story put too much focus on the wrong character (seriously if they had just cut out Hector Hammond the movie would have instantly improved greatly), and most of the action ranged from boring to just stupid. The film failed because the people making the film did not know how the story should be told. They didn't get it. I would put Dardevil and Ghost rider in that same category. The pieces are there but the people behind it just did not understand how those stories should be told. And that doesn't mean get a director who is a fan, Nolan wasn't a big fan of Batman, but he surrounded himself with people who were and saw how the story should be told.

While Marvel's business model is brilliant, two movies a year grouped in phases, and Marvel is an independent studio and can dedicate that much time to, it doesn't mean it will work for Warner. That's not why they're successful. It's because their goal is to make fun and entertaining movies, not just ones you can profit from. On one hand starting with a group film can be a great way to introduce character to an audience like a soft opening; on the other if it fails say goodbye to anything other than Batman coming out for a while. Also on one hand Marvel was so successful starting with a group film that it seems like a no brainer; On the other hand we might just have 5 crappy films that leaves no one wanting to see a group one.

Ending with a group film or beginning with one isn't as important as getting the right people for the job and making a good film.

I have a feeling they may use JL to springboard solo films. They seem intent on getting JL out to compete against Avengers and collect on the team up craze. And with fans wanting a Wonder Woman, a Flash, a Man of Steel Sequel, a Batman reboot, and a World's Finest film before JL; I doubt they'll be willing to finance all those high budget films before trying to capitalize on JL in the next few years.
 
That's not true. The X-Men franchise did not have solo films before their team Up movie (and eventually spun off the Wolverine solo franchise) and they are makiing Guardians of the Galaxy without solo pics. I wouldn't say that DC is doing the opposite of Marvel since Marvel has done it both ways. This is a false equivalence.

You're so dense. Obviously OP was talking about the Marvel movies that lead up to The Avengers. :doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:
 
WB have to make a way for Justice league without the origins for eg: in G-I-Goe movie they never explained all origins but gave a flashback hints , set up premises, gather all heros and bang the movie is done .
With what I have seen with Man of steel and they have done a very great job on making it Super its not gonna be easy Rebooting the Batman and having First Flash and wonder woman Solo movies Competing the Marvel Universe as well as setting up a grand universe .
In this case the justice league might take more time than year 2015 - 2017 to get all the heros if they go with Marvel strategy .
Also they cannot make DC universe look a copy of marvel as lots of cinemagoers may criticize so this idea of marvel cannot be repeated .People are already criticizing superman killing Zod they will also argue over WB making their DC Avengers soon .
 
You're so dense. Obviously OP was talking about the Marvel movies that lead up to The Avengers. :doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:

It doesn't matter. The point is that it is not necessary and it a false representation to think that just because they did it one way that everybody has to do it that way since they did it the other way and it worked as well. Furthermore, you should watch what you say about calling people dense.
 
Its only equivalent if you ignore the actual important aspects of the stories. Its not about the genre, its about whether the characters have a common premise and story.

I already gave the similarities. You don't rely on ignoring any aspects of the stories. If you look at them you will always find that there is a team-up of heroes who are fighting or have fought for a common goal. That counts for both X-Men (which didn't start out with solo films) and Marvel's Avengers (which did). The title of this thread says "should the Warner Brothers do the opposite of Marvel?". I guess that means they shouldn't do a film since Marvel had done it both ways. Actually I jest. My real point here is that it is not necessary to do solo films since going with a super team movie without it works as well and Marvel has proven that already.
 
Last edited:
I should think the demographic most likely to be targeted would be passingly familiar with Justice League in part because of the DCAU show. It's because of that show that some people were confused and even mad that GL used Hal Jordan instead of John Stewart.

Granted, origin stories outside Superman and Batman may not be known, but those aren't necessary for you to enjoy JL. A movie can give us at least the Flash and WW without sweating their origin stories. It can be an interesting way to NOT do an origin story that sets out to tell the whole tale chronologically, it could instead follow the flashback template used in BB and MOS but perhaps a little less heavy handed.
 
I think at the end of the day it all comes down to how much WB are willing to risk financially.A flash and wonder woman movie would cost about 150mill+ each and aquaman would cost even more as its based in the ocean. If they bomb, you can forget about justice league. Thats why i think a justice league movie would be the safest option first which would enable them to know which characters(apart from superman and batman) the audience loved and enjoyed watching in the movie and greenlight solo movies for them.
 
i just want them to show these characters the respect they deserve. if that means taking your time to establish superman, the flash, wonder woman, batman again, and green lantern, then awesome. they're better off making sure that everything is done right then rushing everything only to regret not doing it properly in the future.
 
Last edited:
Wonder Woman needs to be the next character they show respect to after MOS 2.
 
This is exactly why I desperately hope that they'll draw their inspiration from the 2009 Animated Wonder Woman movie.

It took the character seriously, made her relatable in a modern world, it made her funny (which caught me off guard but nearly had me applauding near the end), and dissolved every negative stereotype that'd been tossed onto the character.

I literally can't go on about how awesome it was. If only they had released that movie in theaters... it would lay a TON of groundwork for the live action version that would be used in JL. They wouldn't need to bother with a solo movie to lead up for her, they could just re-introduce the character within JL and spin off a series to follow since the basics would already be covered by the animated movie a few years earlier (not connected of course).
 
I think they just need to follow that premise (tone it down a bit) and do a origin around it. That movie was awesome.
 
To answer the OP, I really hope they do.

WB isn't Marvel Studios. They don't live to make superhero films, so they're not going to pump out five different superhero films in a four year span to build up to a JL movie. Not to mention Marvel already DID that, and the last thing WB should do is blatantly rip off their competitor.

Ideally, we'd get MOS2 to set up a Superman who could lead the team, with either a WW or Flash solo movie. Then the JL film that introduces the other members, including a rebooted Batman.
 
Yeah, not quite the complete opposite cuz it's not like it's just JL then a bunch of solos. But somewhere in between. 2 Superman's and 1 other film then JL THEN launch into the rest.

Even 2 Superman movies before isn't that bad of an idea if done correctly.
 
dc/ wb should probably not follow the marvel plan. dc loves to test things out, and if they test poorly there are no more movies. if flash, wonder woman, heaven sent, etc all fail, then there's no justice league. why not do a jl movie or world's finest? they'll make money because they have characters that people know already. marvel needed lead ups because no one really knew who these characters were. they didn't have as much exposure as superman, batman, or wonder woman.

either way, marvel's movies were subpar when they made a decision to do avengers. iron man 1 was the only good marvel studios movie until avengers, and that movie wasn't really part of the plan. fury's after credit scene was an easter egg, not necessarily a plan. if they had a plan since 2008, then we would've seen avengers much sooner than 2012.
 
Since we're getting three Snyder movies, I'd settle for a MoS/dcu 'origin' trilogy.

2013 Man of Steel
2015 The Trinity (WWs origin + rebooted Bats)
2017 Justice league (Flash's origin + rebooted GL, etc)

I think the introduction of WW would make for a cool story in the next movie. Supes has asked the world to trust him (and we could have Bats, who doesn't). But would Supes trust another superpowered being roaming the Earth (WW)? Would Supes get involved?

If the first movie is about first-contact; the second movie is about power and losing the people's trust; the third is about superpowers coming together and earning back the world's trust..

After this zero-issue-esque origin trilogy, open it up to solo franchises simply titled - 'Batman', 'Wonder Woman', 'Superman' (with a new director), etc. Snyder can potentially come back for JL2, JL3, etc
 
Last edited:
First and foremost Flash and Wondy need their origins and mythos known to the public. I wouldn't mind Flash, Wonder Woman, and MOS 2 coming out in 2015 to battle the Avengers 2.

Then maybe in 2016 we will have a Trinity movie, which will be the rebooted Batman's debut. Making a Trinity movie would be an easy success that could easily rival the Avengers hype. Let's be honest, who wouldn't want to see something like this in live action.....
3079011-earth2_001_pg004.jpg
 
But, why? Most people know the origin story of the main JL members. So why not have a JL movie be the springboard to individual movies?

Just a thought.

Me, and a bunch of others, only saw the cartoon TV show and never actually read the comics. I have no idea where Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Arrow, Aquaman, etc.. originated from.

I only know Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern.

For Marvel I already knew where Hulk, IM, and Captain originated from but the solo movies did wonders.

If JL does a team up movie without an introduction to Flash & WW then it will fail and to be honest I wouldn't be surprised. I don't think Warner Bros. will ever get things right.
 
Me, and a bunch of others, only saw the cartoon TV show and never actually read the comics. I have no idea where Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Arrow, Aquaman, etc.. originated from.

I only know Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern.

For Marvel I already knew where Hulk, IM, and Captain originated from but the solo movies did wonders.

If JL does a team up movie without an introduction to Flash & WW then it will fail and to be honest I wouldn't be surprised. I don't think Warner Bros. will ever get things right.

Boy I have underestimated the moviegoing public from that statement!

But I have to ask whether you went and saw "The Hobbit". Because that movie was really entertaining and I think it was a hit. But the thing is they introduced a lot of characters in that movie, especially the dwarves. Hell I probably only remembered a couple of names after the movie was done. But did I enjoy it? Yes. Did I remember everyone's names? No.

My point is: once you have a well written movie with well written characters, people will just go along with it. I don't think you have to do in depth characterization in an ensemble movie, just a bit of an explanation, maybe a bit of flashback. Actions speak louder than words so to speak. You just have to make these characters as distinct as can be. I'm already not too sold on Superman as Man of Steel followed the template of the Dark Knight Trilogy a bit too closely for my taste.

And if they did it like this it would be a triumph in for WB that they did it their way and show Marvel they got bigger cahones than their opposite.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"