The Official Justice League & World's Finest Thread

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Yes and I would be sad about that if SR was a quality product.

 

[El Payaso]

It was a quality movie. Fanboys and execs complain because they wanted more of a product than a movie.

 

[Super Kal]

Seriously, can you say something better positive instead of negative?

sure...

Singer hit pure gold when he chose Routh to play as Superman, and the opening credits were so exactly what I wanted, it made me cry the first time I watched it

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

In your opinion it was, in some other folks eyes it wasn't. I'm glad you liked it but I didn't. I will continue to talk about the boxoffice of just about every movie because thats entertaining to me and it's fun to chat about this particular movie's boxoffice numbers, but at the end of the day the movie has to speak for it's self. To me it said, I'm boring, I have bland characters and a dumb storyline, don't like me.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

That was the plan before SR did poor box office. Because they each cost anywhere from 150 to 200 mill north on Superheroes the GA doesn't really know about. It is too much of a risk. It is far more effective to spend it on one movie, introduce the characters in one movie at one time, and then do solo movies. It is all about money.

Yeah its genius, introduce the characters in one movie, which may flop itself, and the 2 characters who have only recently been re-introduced to the GA, will be interpreted differently and by different actors.

Man, WHAT A PLAN!

 

[LL2K2]

Hmmm...so where is this "big announcement" they were talking about? November 18th has come and gone, and we still don't know squat about the cast (except Common as GL).

Now the latest casting "announcement" is supposed to be, when? January?

 

[The Man of Steel]

If it were up to me then I'd say get Superman Returns 2 out first

 

[Super Kal]

that won't happen... not with the strike still in effect

 

[The Man of Steel]

what strike?

 

[Nightwing1977]

what strike?

The writer strike. That why many late night talk shows & new episodes of Lost, Heroes, etc. won't be showing for awhile. That why I think WB went ahead with JL fast right away instead of giving it time to clean up some stuff on the script.

 

[Showtime]

what strike?

Do you live in a cabbage patch? If so, that would be cool.

 

[X-Maniac]

Yeah its genius, introduce the characters in one movie, which may flop itself, and the 2 characters who have only recently been re-introduced to the GA, will be interpreted differently and by different actors.

Man, WHAT A PLAN!

But it could work well. Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman are the well-known, iconic characters, and probable crowd-pullers. Flash, Green Lantern and Martian Manhunter aren't well-known and will benefit from being with more famous heroes. It seems less risky to introduce the lesser-known in a movie containing the iconic characters. Having solo movies for each of them first seems a more risky, and more long-winded, way to go about it.

I'd like to see the JLA movie show them coming together to form the League because of a worldwide threat, rather than already existing as a group (as seems to be in the current storyline). I'm not sure the public will accept that these heroes already work together in times of need; they will wonder why they haven't called on each other before in other movies.

 

[X-Maniac]

It was a quality movie. Fanboys and execs complain because they wanted more of a product than a movie.

Not the case. The movie may have visual/technical quality... but it lacks quality, thought and craft in the editing, storytelling, pacing, dialogue, action, symbolism, acting and characterisation.

Nothing wrong with making Superman relatable and realistic, but make him likeable and don't put him in such a dark and nasty movie. Making him seem so irresponsible and selfish in abandoning Lois and earth is not making him relatable and realistic. Who wants to be like that? Who wants to be such a super-loser? Who wants to be mean and cruel enough to throw a ball miles too far for his own pet? (We can thank Mike Dougherty for the sadistic nastiness) Who wants to abandon a sexual partner and leave earth for five years without saying anything? And let's not have excuses about going to rescue people on the shattered remnants of a planet destroyed thousands of years before!? If they'd survived thousands of years, they wouldn't need rescuing; if they hadn't survived, they wouldn't need rescuing. He was shown abandoning a world that had descended into war and terrorism - not a good message to send to the people in the world of the movie or the people in our world who are the audience.

A visually well-shot movie isn't enough. Don't think that those who don't like it just want movies that are just explosions, or giant robots, or buildings smashing. The basic ideas in this movie were not carefully considered. All that money poured into fancy new cameras and cornfields and expensive sets and childhood flashbacks and edited-out $10m sequences does not make this a good Superman movie. Clearly, it did not resonate with the general public as well as hoped.

 

[TheLongestDay]

Not the case. The movie may have visual/technical quality... but it lacks quality, thought and craft in the editing, storytelling, pacing, dialogue, action, symbolism, acting and characterisation.

Nothing wrong with making Superman relatable and realistic, but make him likeable and don't put him in such a dark and nasty movie. Making him seem so irresponsible and selfish in abandoning Lois and earth is not making him relatable and realistic. Who wants to be like that? Who wants to be such a super-loser? Who wants to be mean and cruel enough to throw a ball miles too far for his own pet? (We can thank Mike Dougherty for the sadistic nastiness) Who wants to abandon a sexual partner and leave earth for five years without saying anything? And let's not have excuses about going to rescue people on the shattered remnants of a planet destroyed thousands of years before!? If they'd survived thousands of years, they wouldn't need rescuing; if they hadn't survived, they wouldn't need rescuing. He was shown abandoning a world that had descended into war and terrorism - not a good message to send to the people in the world of the movie or the people in our world who are the audience.

A visually well-shot movie isn't enough. Don't think that those who don't like it just want movies that are just explosions, or giant robots, or buildings smashing. The basic ideas in this movie were not carefully considered. All that money poured into fancy new cameras and cornfields and expensive sets and childhood flashbacks and edited-out $10m sequences does not make this a good Superman movie. Clearly, it did not resonate with the general public as well as hoped.

I totally agree,Superman should be someone we can look up to and aspire to follow his moral codes.(i wouldnt wanna be the father of a 5 year old kid id never met!!!)

He is an icon,a character who sees all the best in humanity,he has fully embraced Earth and humanity as his own and would die fighting for it-he wouldnt run off back to Krypton without so much as a goodbye.

Bad plot,bad direction and bad characterization...such a shame though I really wanted to love it.

 

[Indrid Cold]

Wow did they really have to pay homage to the original so much? I think Superman Returns coulda done much better as an origin story.

 

[Dr.BruceBanner]

My personal opinion on a JLA movie is this. Reboot Superman. Superman Begins, or whatever. Let's just hope it isn't called something like Superman Starts. Set it in a world where you could believe that Superman could come into contact with the Batman of Nolan's world. Then introduce the Flash, Green Lantern, and Wonder Woman in movies of their own. Then bring them all together in a JLA movie, provided of course all the separate movies work out. Don't do what the Hulk and Iron Man are rumoured to be doing and have them pop up in scenes in each other's movies. This won't work if the movies don't work.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Not the case. The movie may have visual/technical quality... but it lacks quality, thought and craft in the editing, storytelling, pacing, dialogue, action, symbolism, acting and characterisation.

Nothing wrong with making Superman relatable and realistic, but make him likeable and don't put him in such a dark and nasty movie. Making him seem so irresponsible and selfish in abandoning Lois and earth is not making him relatable and realistic. Who wants to be like that? Who wants to be such a super-loser? Who wants to be mean and cruel enough to throw a ball miles too far for his own pet? (We can thank Mike Dougherty for the sadistic nastiness) Who wants to abandon a sexual partner and leave earth for five years without saying anything? And let's not have excuses about going to rescue people on the shattered remnants of a planet destroyed thousands of years before!? If they'd survived thousands of years, they wouldn't need rescuing; if they hadn't survived, they wouldn't need rescuing. He was shown abandoning a world that had descended into war and terrorism - not a good message to send to the people in the world of the movie or the people in our world who are the audience.

A visually well-shot movie isn't enough. Don't think that those who don't like it just want movies that are just explosions, or giant robots, or buildings smashing. The basic ideas in this movie were not carefully considered. All that money poured into fancy new cameras and cornfields and expensive sets and childhood flashbacks and edited-out $10m sequences does not make this a good Superman movie. Clearly, it did not resonate with the general public as well as hoped.

Disagree with all of this, how was Superman to know that Krypton did explode? Or that there werent any survivors, he has gone back to Krypton in the comics for similar reasons so whatever you say it isnt out of character. He left Earth to help people who could have been in need, survivors could have been living in poverty on chunks of the planet, for all he knew, his parents could still be alive. And people saying Superman should represent the best in us, he is human, so he is flawed like us, its not like he doesnt make regualr mistakes in the comics.

As for the 'it didnt resonate with the general public' comment, how come it won 1 Empire and 2 Total Film awards (one of which was best 2006 movie) which you were voted by who? Yes, the general public.

 

[Dr.BruceBanner]

he is flawed like us

but not AS flawed AS us.

 

[X-Maniac]

Disagree with all of this, how was Superman to know that Krypton did explode? Or that there werent any survivors, he has gone back to Krypton in the comics for similar reasons so whatever you say it isnt out of character. He left Earth to help people who could have been in need, survivors could have been living in poverty on chunks of the planet, for all he knew, his parents could still be alive. And people saying Superman should represent the best in us, he is human, so he is flawed like us, its not like he doesnt make regualr mistakes in the comics.

As for the 'it didnt resonate with the general public' comment, how come it won 1 Empire and 2 Total Film awards (one of which was best 2006 movie) which you were voted by who? Yes, the general public.

Oh I can understand why he might want to go and look at the location of Krypton to see what, if anything, was left.

But thousands of years had passed since he was sent to earth, as Jor-El tells him in the first movie ("By your reckoning, I shall have been dead many thousands of years."). In thousands of years, any survivors would have learned to cope, or moved on, or perished from the radiation. Did he not consider that anything left of the planet would be lethally irradiated so that he would die if he went near it!?

Also, if the initial trip from Krypton to earth as a baby took 2.5 years but, because of faster than lightspeed travel, thousands of earth years had passed, then twice as many thousands of earth years should have passed in his trip to Krypton and then back to earth again.

The flaw isn't in him going to Krypton, it's in not saying goodbye to a woman with whom he had some kind of sexual relationship. I also think it feels wrong for Lois to not know he was Clark Kent if she was having a relationship with him.

As i said above, I also hated the fact that he threw the ball too far for his dog, and seemed mean and cruel. Yes, there was a scene where the dog later retrieved it, but that was cut. Why was it cut? Why did they want him to appear mean and cruel? It was an extremely lame attempt at humour. Is this part of his flawed character too? That he is cruel to those he loves, that he does things to upset them without even thinking? Is that what we are supposed to believe - that he is so mean, cruel, irresponsible and selfish?

As for awards and such, I think critics and awards would recognise the art Bryan put into the movie, which is fair enough. But I'm talking more about the shocking underperformance of this film.

 

[The Man of Steel]

I Like both idea's

 

[The Man of Steel]

it should defanetly happen

 

[sharks]

Routh looks like a Super-boy-toy rather than Superman.

I just don't buy him as Superman. Christopher Reeve embodied the character in every way possible. Routh simply doesn't come close to filling his shoes.

time to move on

 

[mego joe]

Based on SR, a spin-off of JL is preferable. However, the third option of a completely unrelated reboot independent of either previous film would be an option if JL ends up being crappy.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

but not AS flawed AS us.

Of course he is if he was raised as a human, if he was raised by cows, he would eat grass. By Supermans own words in the comics "I think and act like a human, not a Kryptonian."

Oh I can understand why he might want to go and look at the location of Krypton to see what, if anything, was left.

But thousands of years had passed since he was sent to earth, as Jor-El tells him in the first movie ("By your reckoning, I shall have been dead many thousands of years."). In thousands of years, any survivors would have learned to cope, or moved on, or perished from the radiation. Did he not consider that anything left of the planet would be lethally irradiated so that he would die if he went near it!?

Also, if the initial trip from Krypton to earth as a baby took 2.5 years but, because of faster than lightspeed travel, thousands of earth years had passed, then twice as many thousands of earth years should have passed in his trip to Krypton and then back to earth again.

The flaw isn't in him going to Krypton, it's in not saying goodbye to a woman with whom he had some kind of sexual relationship. I also think it feels wrong for Lois to not know he was Clark Kent if she was having a relationship with him.

Well the Superman i know is not above and beyond mistakes, in ANY medium, in fact he makes them quite regularly in the comics. In 'The Journey' he dissapeared for months on end without telling anyone and he was married to Lois at the time, but for her going to look for him and getting herself in trouble, who knows how long he would not have appeared for? I could name various other examples as well.

As for going to Krypton, for all Superman knew, the information in the crystals could have been innaccurate, his parents could still have been alive, or his people could have suffering unbeknownst to anyone else in the universe. IMO Superman had a duty to go to Krypton, and its quite possible (and subtly implied in the movie) that he might not have returned, for various reasons.

As i said above, I also hated the fact that he threw the ball too far for his dog, and seemed mean and cruel. Yes, there was a scene where the dog later retrieved it, but that was cut. Why was it cut? Why did they want him to appear mean and cruel? It was an extremely lame attempt at humour. Is this part of his flawed character too? That he is cruel to those he loves, that he does things to upset them without even thinking? Is that what we are supposed to believe - that he is so mean, cruel, irresponsible and selfish?

Sorry X-M, but i just find this a ridiculous reasons to dislike the movie, i mean are you kidding me? This is nitpicking at its worst IMO, and no i dont mean to come off as rude before you ask

As for awards and such, I think critics and awards would recognise the art Bryan put into the movie, which is fair enough. But I'm talking more about the shocking underperformance of this film.

How is winning an award for 'BEST 2006 MOVIE' and 'BEST NEWCOMER' regocnising the art of the movie? It has nothing to do with the art put into the movie, its about the movie itself and i doubt the GA think about the 'art' of movies. And a movie doesnt get such a good critical reception as SR because of the movies visuals either IMO.

 

[Showtime]

Discuss Justice League with or without Routh or a possible World's Finest with or without Routh.