Justice League What if Justice League bombs?

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Because that character's inclusion in the movie didn't feel out of left field. They established him in the same world as Stark and the rest, and got his origin out of the way in his own film. They established his role, his motives, and how that character works in his movie and could get on to the meat of the story in the Avengers.

Perhaps. But not many people saw that movie but still loved his role in Avengers.

 

[KangConquers]

But do you the Avengers was great because of those prequel films, or because Whedon simply has great taste and made an awesome movie?

How does the existence of The Incredible Hulk make The Avengers a better movie?

Have you ever seen X-Men 3? Remember after Professor X and Cyclops died and it was Wolverine, Storm, Rogue and a bunch of extra characters that had barely gotten any screen time? It felt pretty empty.

Introducing these characters in solo films first gets the audience invested in the characters as individuals, with motives, history etc vs. seeing them as warm bodies in a Superman/ Batman team-up.

 

[dnno1]

Because they make money. Is that your point?
That's all those films are, a giant money maker. It's a sound and light show meant to sell cars and toys. But as movies, they are utter crap.
Do you really want that out of your Justice League movie?
That's my point that you're continually missing.
I'm not denying that people would turn out in droves to see a JL film, I'm just saying that as a movie, given the approach WB has been talking about, it's very possible that it will end up being a failure as a compelling, quality movie.
If I had to choose between my favorite character's films being a huge worldwide box office success but an utter dud as a movie, OR a quality, well made film that hardly anyone saw, then I'd choose the latter ten out of ten times.

That's the main reason why they are in the business. That's the whole point. Nobody with a business mind and investors makes films just for the sole purpose of quality entertainment. That's a farce. Quality is subjective and what is good to some may be utterly unbearable to others. They are only trying to satisfy enough viewers to turn their profit. If they don't then it's back to the drawing board. Certainly, in a perfect scenario, I would like to see Justice League turn into a multi-picture franchise, but whatever it takes to get there I understand going into it that it may not please everyone. That's because I know they are going to do what they must to make a profit first.

 

[jmc]

Have you ever seen X-Men 3? Remember after Professor X and Cyclops died and it was Wolverine, Storm, Rogue and a bunch of extra characters that had barely gotten any screen time? It felt pretty empty.

Introducing these characters in solo films first gets the audience invested in the characters as individuals, with motives, history etc vs. seeing them as warm bodies in a Superman/ Batman team-up.

X3 was just a complete piece of crap.

 

[Juicy J]

That's the main reason why they are in the business. That's the whole point. Nobody with a business mind and investors makes films just for the sole purpose of quality entertainment. That's a farce. Quality is subjective and what is good to some may be utterly unbearable to others. They are only trying to satisfy enough viewers to turn their profit. If they don't then it's back to the drawing board. Certainly, in a perfect scenario, I would like to see Justice League turn into a multi-picture franchise, but whatever it takes to get there I understand going into it that it may not please everyone. That's because I know they are going to do what they must to make a profit first.

Look, your original point was someone would look like a fool if they tried to complain about the quality of a movie if the film in question made a lot of money. I'm telling you that's not true, using the Transformers movies as an example; it made crazy bank but I could sit here and pick apart each movie bit by bit and explain how each one is utter garbage, and I wouldn't look remotely foolish doing it.
I don't really know what it is you're arguing for here, because everything you're saying is true. WB is a business and is going to try and make money first and foremost. I get that. But that doesn't give them a free pass to make whatever they want and expect us to go see it.
They understand that if they make crap, people either a) won't see it, or if they do see it, b) they won't be inclined to see another one. It's all about making a sustainable franchise that will last for years; a cash cow they can keep milking. You can't do that if you make a crappy movie, which, if the newest rumor is true about them further postponing JL past 2015, they are starting to understand
As a fan, you should probably wait for WB to make a quality movie instead of trying to cash in on a trend. I don't understand why you're arguing against this. As a fan, I know I'm so much more pleased when the movie based on the source material that I love is handled properly and done thoughtfully. I'm saying this because I'm getting the impression that you'll accept any sort of JL movie as long as it makes bank, which I hope isn't true. Cause they could definitely make a Transformers-esque JL movie and make big time money. But aren't you hoping for more than that? A Justice league movie done properly would be amazing, and I don't want to see it turned into some generic special effects driven blockbuster.

 

[KangConquers]

X3 was just a complete piece of crap.

Agreed. No comic book property is immune to being a complete piece of crap. And if Warner Bros squeezes 4-5 debuting, completely disparate characters into the same 2 1/2 hour movie, I think Justice League's chances of being a complete piece of crap increase.

 

[NosfeRomas]

It wasn't a COMPLETE piece of crap, the music was excellent.

 

[SilentKnight40]

Hi all..long time visitor but never thought to post until now but I have to say I don't see why WB needs solo films to make a good justice league movie. It's preferable yes but it's not necessary. I saw the avengers with my mom, girlfriend, sister and a few friends from college. Of the group I was the only one who saw all the marvel movies before hand and a few of my friends had seen maybe one or two, mostly iron man. But that didn't impact their enjoyment of the avemgers they loved it regardless of what they saw before..because it was a good entertaining movie first and foremost.

That's what WB needs to do and concentrate on, making a good movie. Regardless if they do solo movies first or go straight to JL, get a writer and director that cares about the material and make a damn good movie. If the movie is a good, quality, fun movie people will go see it and enjoy it, solo movies or not. The average person doesn't care about solo movies if the movie is good and they've heard good things about it they will go see it. obviously as a hardcore fan I'd prefer solo movies first but is it necessary to make a good movie? No, absolutely not

Sorry for the long first post

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Hi all..long time visitor but never thought to post until now but I have to say I don't see why WB needs solo films to make a good justice league movie. It's preferable yes but it's not necessary. I saw the avengers with my mom, girlfriend, sister and a few friends from college. Of the group I was the only one who saw all the marvel movies before hand and a few of my friends had seen maybe one or two, mostly iron man. But that didn't impact their enjoyment of the avemgers they loved it regardless of what they saw before..because it was a good entertaining movie first and foremost.

That's what WB needs to do and concentrate on, making a good movie. Regardless if they do solo movies first or go straight to JL, get a writer and director that cares about the material and make a damn good movie. If the movie is a good, quality, fun movie people will go see it and enjoy it, solo movies or not. The average person doesn't care about solo movies if the movie is good and they've heard good things about it they will go see it. obviously as a hardcore fan I'd prefer solo movies first but is it necessary to make a good movie? No, absolutely not

Sorry for the long first post

I'm curious what made your mom go see Avengers. Does she watch a lot of movies?

 

[SilentKnight40]

I'm curious what made your mom go see Avengers. Does she watch a lot of movies?

Yea it's kind of a thing in our family to go to the theater frequently. But she really doesn't bother much with superhero movies besides the Nolan batman movies. To be honest she kind of dismissed them for the most part. But she heard some people at work talking about the avengers and decided she wanted to join us to see it. And having never seen any of the marvel movies she loved every second of it and then went back and watched everything. And now all I hear is "when is the next iron man" and "I'm so excited for the superman movie" and "what's going on with that movie with all the DC heroes"

 

[SilentKnight40]

I just think its silly to say a justice league movie can't be good unless there are solo movies first. People saying its going to flop and whatnot I think aren't taking into account most people don't care about solo movies or no solo movies..they just want to see a good movie and be entertained..if WB gets a writer who knows and cares about these characters and can put together an excellent script and a director who knows what they're doing then there's absolutely no reason a justice league movie can't be a financial and critical success.

 

[Zarex]

Hi all..long time visitor but never thought to post until now but I have to say I don't see why WB needs solo films to make a good justice league movie. It's preferable yes but it's not necessary. I saw the avengers with my mom, girlfriend, sister and a few friends from college. Of the group I was the only one who saw all the marvel movies before hand and a few of my friends had seen maybe one or two, mostly iron man. But that didn't impact their enjoyment of the avemgers they loved it regardless of what they saw before..because it was a good entertaining movie first and foremost.

Whedon certainly did a masterful job putting a disparate group of characters together and doing it in such a way so that even the casual fan could enjoy it. But the committed MCU follower had a much richer cinematic experience. Those who saw all of the preceding films knew the reasons for Banner's living arrangements, Cap's costume, the "sibling" rivalries (Loki-Thor, Stark-Rogers) the Coulson-Potts friendship and Hulk's inability to lift Thor's hammer. You could conceivably put a Justice League movie on screen that would explain the Flash's origin via backstory and have Diana monologue about her Themiscyran upbringing. But that wouldn't have nearly as much appeal to me as a mash-up involving previously fleshed out characters.

Warner Brothers has another problem, in that there are more masks & capes among the five JL principals. As we've seen with Cap in the Avengers and in the failed JL tv pilot, fanciful costuming can look quite odd in a group setting. Having origin films helps to explain why dressing like that and fighting crime/alien invasion/killer robots is perfectly reasonable given the character's history.

 

[SilentKnight40]

Whedon certainly did a masterful job putting a disparate group of characters together and doing it in such a way so that even the casual fan could enjoy it. But the committed MCU follower had a much richer cinematic experience. Those who saw all of the preceding films knew the reasons for Banner's living arrangements, Cap's costume, the "sibling" rivalries (Loki-Thor, Stark-Rogers) the Coulson-Potts friendship and Hulk's inability to lift Thor's hammer.

Well yes of course the viewing experience was richer having seen all the movies prior to avengers. Like I said I would definitely prefer solo movies first with maybe a Worlds Finest coming after the solos are done to lead into justice league. I guess my point was more to people saying justice league will flop or be a bad movie because there aren't solo movies first. That's simply not true. The average moviegoer doesn't care about that. They just want a good movie.

Now it's up to WB to actually make a good movie, something I'm quickly losing faith in happening

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Warner Brothers has another problem, in that there are more masks & capes among the five JL principals. As we've seen with Cap in the Avengers and in the failed JL tv pilot, fanciful costuming can look quite odd in a group setting. Having origin films helps to explain why dressing like that and fighting crime/alien invasion/killer robots is perfectly reasonable given the character's history.

I noticed that Jl is a lot more 'superheroy' in a classic silver age sense.

They all have superhero names for instance.

In Avengers, they just refer toach other as Rogers (or Cap), Stark, Thor, Barton, Romanov and Banner, not their superhero names.

Also, Cap is the only one wears a 'costume'.

its interesting how the Jl movie will most likely be more serious in tone than Avengers, when it has the more comicbooky content.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Yea it's kind of a thing in our family to go to the theater frequently. But she really doesn't bother much with superhero movies besides the Nolan batman movies. To be honest she kind of dismissed them for the most part. But she heard some people at work talking about the avengers and decided she wanted to join us to see it. And having never seen any of the marvel movies she loved every second of it and then went back and watched everything. And now all I hear is "when is the next iron man" and "I'm so excited for the superman movie" and "what's going on with that movie with all the DC heroes"

Ah, word of mouth.

I wonder if it was word of mouth simply regarding the quality of the movie, or word of mouth surrounding the whole hype of it being the culmination of several other films. (Even if your mom didn't know, was the reason the person at work was so high on the film because of the team up hype?)

Basically I'm wondering if it was the whole solo movies team up thing that only nerds appreciate that actually caused a lot of positive word of mouth to the soccer moms.

 

[Zarex]

I noticed that Jl is a lot more 'superheroy' in a classic silver age sense.

They all have superhero names for instance.

In Avengers, they just refer toach other as Rogers (or Cap), Stark, Thor, Barton, Romanov and Banner, not their superhero names.

Also, Cap is the only one wears a 'costume'.

its interesting how the Jl movie will most likely be more serious in tone than Avengers, when it has the more comicbooky content.

Secret identities - another major problem for a team-up movie. I was hoping they would finally do away with Superman's ridiculous secret identity in this year's reboot, but I am not holding my breath.

 

[Mr.M]

You have to build up the lore with these characters. There is little to no lore outside of crappy TV series and animation with the rest of the Justice League. Without that, the audiences simply aren't going to care. You can argue that there is enough there based off the animated series and whatever we have gotten up until this point, but that is such a low percentage of audiences. Plus a lot of the powers will come off as cheesy in live action, as we witnessed with Green Lantern. Plus the costumes. Thor suffered from this, but they made a solid enough movie, established a separate, self contained, universe, etc. It worked for that world it created for itself. They kept Earth out of it for the large part, but the human characters like Kat Dennings were relatable. It only got cheesy when the Warrior Three showed up and Portman's "OMG", which was pretty brutal. But hey, the chicks like Hemsworth and the action was decent enough that the cheesy third act made the film passable.

 

[SilentKnight40]

Ah, word of mouth.

I wonder if it was word of mouth simply regarding the quality of the movie, or word of mouth surrounding the whole hype of it being the culmination of several other films. (Even if your mom didn't know, was the reason the person at work was so high on the film because of the team up hype?)

Basically I'm wondering if it was the whole solo movies team up thing that only nerds appreciate that actually caused a lot of positive word of mouth to the soccer moms.

Well I don't know what the people at her job actually said, but I do know that they're, for the most part, moms like her who don't pay much attention to this stuff. And this was like 3 weeks after the release so I can only assume it was the quality of the movie. But again I can't say that for sure.

But regardless her enjoyment of the movie wasn't lessened by not knowing the back stories or origins of each hero. If anything it gave her more incentive to go back and watch the solo movies

 

[Micromind]

Secret identities - another major problem for a team-up movie. I was hoping they would finally do away with Superman's ridiculous secret identity in this year's reboot, but I am not holding my breath.

DC Superheroes are like Gods, so in order to have them relateable, secret identity is needed, I would say that it is an asset instead of a liability.

 

[Zarex]

DC Superheroes are like Gods, so in order to have them relateable, secret identity is needed, I would say that it is an asset instead of a liability.

I can understand why vigilantes like Batman and Daredevil would prefer to keep their identities hidden - though that doesn't excuse the use of a mask that covers just the upper portion of the face. But it definitely detracts from the "realism" of the Dark Knight Trilogy that Gordon doesn't figure out that the only person in Gotham that could possibly be Batman is, in fact, the Caped Crusader.

And Superman, who operates in full daylight, with the full approval (usually) of local and national authorities and with his face completely uncovered cannot have a traditional secret identity without everyone who has ever seen Clark Kent looking foolish. Perhaps I am jaded - way too many of the Superman comics I read as a child involved Supes going to extraordinary lengths to conceal his identity, using super-ventriloquism and super-hypnosis so that he could safely do battle with underpowered antagonists like the Toy and Terra men. And the character simply doesn't need it - he could still keep a secret identity by using a journalistic pen name (Calvin Ellis?) and keeping his ties to Lois, Jimmy and Perry. The public would know him as Clark Kent, the nice boy from Kansas who grew up to be the man the tourists call "Superman".

It's wishful thinking, but I am hoping the reboot does away with Clark's dual identities. Otherwise we're certain to get a scene in which Amy Adams looks directly at a glasses-free Henry Cavill and asks "Have you seen Clark?"

 

[metaphysician]

Superman's secret ID certainly is one of the more problematic aspects. Sure, seemingly paper-thin disguises work better in reality than you'd think, and Christopher Reeves certainly sold it well. . . but that was in an era before the internet and digital face recognition. I suppose you could theoretically pull it off through repeated machinations to show that, yes, Clark Kent and Superman are two different people, and that there are plenty of other people who like a whole lot like Superman. . . but that trends to the overly baroque.

 

[Xeno]

Superman's secret ID certainly is one of the more problematic aspects. Sure, seemingly paper-thin disguises work better in reality than you'd think, and Christopher Reeves certainly sold it well. . . but that was in an era before the internet and digital face recognition. I suppose you could theoretically pull it off through repeated machinations to show that, yes, Clark Kent and Superman are two different people, and that there are plenty of other people who like a whole lot like Superman. . . but that trends to the overly baroque.

The problem with Superman's secret identity has always been that the characters around him have to be portrayed as total idiots and even that isn't enough to convince a modern audience that no one would know. The Donner films played with that very cleverly, of course, but the only way it works is if the audience just gives the film a pass. It's very childish and unrealistic but we go along with a wink and a nod because that's the way Superman's world has always been.

One of the few good moments in Green Lantern came when Carol Ferris instantly saw through Hal's cheesy domino mask disguise and confronted him. Carol is a sharp executive; to have her so easily fooled would have undermined the character's supposed intelligence. But that begs the question: Why are Lois Lane and all of Metropolis so bloody stupid?

 

[Shikamaru]

I agree that it isn't something that makes a lot of sense but at the same time, it is a very iconic Superman thing. So I'm kinda torn between having it or not .

 

[Gary Griffith]

I think the better question is if MOS bombs. Many people seem to automatically think it will be a big hit, but what if it does even Superman Returns box office numbers? That was enough to can Routh and reboot. If MOS underperforms we may be looking at a JL with a new Superman, Batman and Green Lantern. Might not be the worst thing that could happen, though I'm sure WB wouldn't agree! I have a feeling that even if MOS is a dud that JL will happen. Just feels like they're putting their hopes into it. Avengers envy? Maybe. But there's a lot of money to be made with a solid JL film, and WB knows it.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Superman Returns was a terrible idea from the get go though (a half-assed sequel to your dad's Superman movies). This is a solid reboot. It could be a major hit. What I've seen so far bodes well.

I mean look at Green Lantern. I saw that trailer, I knew it would crash and burn.