Justice League The Official Justice League Director Thread

musclesforsupes

Superhero
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
7,117
Reaction score
0
Points
31
So should this film with a big name director or a small name director? Myself I believe it needs a big name director. One that can give the film some legs even before it gets filming. Therefore I go with my top three of..


1. Steven Spielberg( If you want a big director I can only think of him and if they say this film will be going "Dark and Mature" then look to Steven's films to his credit for this)

2. J.J. Abrams (Big director and look what he did for Star Trek, also I am a fan of Orci and Kurtsman whom seem to respect continuity and the characters they write about so would not mind them being brought in with J.J.)

3. Ridley Scott (Again big name director, can bring the movie a big feel to it, just look at Prometheus and how that movie has been seen in the media)


So whats your top 3?
 
J. J. Abrams would be perfect.

But he has a contract with Paramount, I don't think until when...

They need a director who really loves comic books and this characters.
 
The Wachowski Siblings need to prove themselves again.
 
Even though I don't really care for him I think James Cameron would make a great Justice League film as would Steven Spielberg but that's never going to happen.

I would love JJ Abrams but again I don't see that happening either.
 
a shot in the dark...I say Joss Whedon. steal him from Marvel. He knows how to handle a comic book movie.
 
It will probably one of WB regular directors like Zack Snyder was with MOS.

If Warner Bros are going the Dark and Mature route for JLA I think Alfonso Cuaron would be a great pick.

Cuaron directed Children Of Men, Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban and the upcoming Gravity starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney.
 
If Zack Snyder does a good job with Man of Steel I say let him have a go at Justice League
 
Duncan Jones
JJ Abrams
Alfonso Cuaron
Brad Bird
Zack Snyder
 
Agreed. But I've always felt I was in the minority with my love for how he handled Watchmen.
 
I thought Watchmen was fantastic...very few deviations from the graphic novel
 
Brad Bird or Duncan Jones.

I'd suggest Alfonso Cuaron, but I'm lobbying for him to direct the next Batman film.
 
Snyder could be great, but I'm not sure how I'd feel about him being the shepherd of the entire Cinematic DCU.
 
I'm against Zak Snyder. He's very technically gifted, his movies are very pretty, but he strikes me as being kind of dumb and shallow. Watchmen was very faithful as far as the details go, but the movie's tone and presentation was off, and I really got the impression Snyder didn't actually understand the book when he read it.

Really, ideally, you want to hit the same points Marvel did with Whedon:

1: Good with ensemble casts.

2: Has experience with action and SFX.

3: Is a fanboy.

4: Actually makes an honest attempt to be artistic and say something meaningful when he does things (avoiding an argument: Not saying everything Whedon makes is super deep and artsy, but he always tries, and that counts for something, Avengers wasn't Citizen Kane, but I doubt it would be as widely well received as it is if it didn't have the real heart to it it has).
 
Last edited:
Oh, and I'd add...

5: Is not a dumb person. Because all four of those describe Snyder, but again I don't think he's that smart.
 
J.J. Abrams can't direct a WB film. He he's under contract with Paramount.

I'm going to list the name I did when this was under the misc films catagory.

David Nutter.

He's a guy that knows the genre from his work on Smallville, and has a ton of other credits under his belt. He won't pull a Martin Campbell and fall asleep at the wheel when the project runs in to trouble.

Sure he's a TV director, but Joss Whedon was primarlily a TV director, other than his work on Serenity.
 
Snyder understood Watchmen. I read his 'Making Of' book and he demonstrated exactly what he got out of the comic. It didn't fit with my interpretation but it was valid. If anything his interpretation was closer to how the comic was viewed at the time.

He is a very visual director who sometimes doesn't know when to stop but he has also demonstrated his ability to get great performances out of actors as well as being able to create powerful scenes.
 
I'm against Zak Snyder. He's very technically gifted, his movies are very pretty, but he strikes me as being kind of dumb and shallow. Watchmen was very faithful as far as the details go, but the movie's tone and presentation was off, and I really got the impression Snyder didn't actually understand the book when he read it.

Really, ideally, you want to hit the same points Marvel did with Whedon:

1: Good with ensemble casts.

2: Has experience with action and SFX.

3: Is a fanboy.

4: Actually makes an honest attempt to be artistic and say something meaningful when he does things (avoiding an argument: Not saying everything Whedon makes is super deep and artsy, but he always tries, and that counts for something, Avengers wasn't Citizen Kane, but I doubt it would be as widely well received as it is if it didn't have the real heart to it it has).

Oh, and I'd add...

5: Is not a dumb person. Because all four of those describe Snyder, but again I don't think he's that smart.

I really think you should look beyond the way he comes across in interviews.

I mean, seriously, you don't get to the position he is in being actually 'dumb'. Yes, he isn't the best public speaker. He comes across in interviews as having serious trouble getting across his point sometimes :funny: But I always feel like saying 'Don't worry mate, I know what you mean', because despite the way he's saying it, he is usually making a good point.

He does fit all you're criteria. That's a much is clear to me.

And yeah, it'd be a big risk handing him the entire franchise, and whether or not I think he could actually do it will depend entirely on how MOS turns out.

But it'd be a lot like trusting Whedon in a way. Trusting the underdog. The guy who is going to work REALLY HARD to prove himself. Who is not so experienced that he's going to be inflexible, but not so much of a drone that he won't provide something that is tangibly 'his' in every peice of work he completes.

JAK®;23457991 said:
Snyder understood Watchmen. I read his 'Making Of' book and he demonstrated exactly what he got out of the comic. It didn't fit with my interpretation but it was valid. If anything his interpretation was closer to how the comic was viewed at the time.

He is a very visual director who sometimes doesn't know when to stop but he has also demonstrated his ability to get great performances out of actors as well as being able to create powerful scenes.

:up:
 
Last edited:
I really think you should look beyond the way he comes across in interviews.

I wasn't basing my opinion on his interviews, I was basing it on his films that I've seen.

I mean, seriously, you don't get to the position he is in being actually 'dumb'. Yes, he isn't the best public speaker. He comes across in interviews as having serious trouble getting across his point sometimes :funny: But I always feel like saying 'Don't worry mate, I know what you mean', because despite the way he's saying it, he is usually making a good point.

Michael Bay calls that into question.

He does fit all you're criteria. That's a much is clear to me.

And yeah, it'd be a big risk handing him the entire franchise, and whether or not I think he could actually do it will depend entirely on how MOS turns out.

But it'd be a lot like trusting Whedon in a way. Trusting the underdog. The guy who is going to work REALLY HARD to prove himself. Who is not so experienced that he's going to be inflexible, but not so much of a drone that he won't provide something that is tangibly 'his' in every peice of work he completes.

Here's the thing: To me, he seems incredibly shallow. He seems to want to do things because they are cool without thinking about how it fits together in the overall film, how it effects the tone, or what it actually communicates to the audience. A major example is the soundtrack to Watchmen. All great songs, if it were a mix tape I would happily keep it in my car, but a lot of the musical segments seemed silly and out of place in the context of the film, at least to me. He didn't change a lot from the source material, but the things he did change said, to me, that he didn't really get what was important in the story. He completely changed the context and, by extension, the meaning of "nothing ever ends," which is arguably the most important thing in Watchmen which the themes and entire story hinge on. I get the feeling he didn't keep it the way it was because it was "just a line" and "could be said by anybody," and wasn't as important as the spectacle scenes like Dr. M in Vietnam. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how he comes off to me.

And Suckerpunch, which he had complete creative control over, was a very stupid movie.

I don't hate the guy, and I really like 300, but I just don't think he's a very smart director. And I think a JLA movie needs smart. Or at least, I'd prefer it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"