Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[Ultimatehero]

If you're talking two universes with one set of actors? A HUGE risk. There wouldn't be any same page there and it would be more confusing than trying to work within the system they have now.

In order to have a good film you need good characters. In order to have good characters you need to know the characters. You can't have characters zig-zagging and jumping all over the place. People are saying, "look to Avengers - it seems so easy! It's stand-alone." Not really. Look at the smaller details already just in character. THAT? Is perfect. It shouldn't seem difficult. It should seem flawless and remarkably easy to compose. But in order to make it seem easy to do - you have to really hit it out of the park. That's why it's getting great reviews. It just feels natural, which is not easy to accomplish.

You can't naturally have something natural. Thus an odd-I don't even know what to call it mixture but not mixture JLA film would leave heads scratching.

 

[Dangerman]

On top of that, the majority of people are into darker stories and characters, especially the teenage demographic. I'm sure we were all there once. It doesn't get anymore Lawful Good Paladin than Cap. I'm shocked TFA that did as well as it did at the box office, but I'm thankful.

Thor, I think, was harder to adapt but easier to market and Cap was the inverse.

I mean really, I was willing to concede that those movies were somewhat safe but with all the great points everyone has brought up I don't even think it's the case. They assessed the mountains of risks and played the odds perfectly and with intelligence. And when it all boils down to it, any year+ project that takes millions of dollars to generate is not safe.

To link it back to the discussion, I think it's possible that films like Superman Returns and Green Lantern were just given too much free reign by the wrong people. Superman Returns, I don't think you can be too hard on. Singer had a great track record.

I love how people like to talk about Superman Returns like it did bad and everyone hated the movie when that is far from the truth. Superman Returns did good at the box office seeing that it was a superhero movie that had little to no action and was a sequel to a 20 year old movie. Not to mention it got great reviews by not only the critics but fans as well. Also it did better than Batman Begins box office wise (another movie which almost got rebooted twice because of "poor box office results"). The problem with Superman Returns was that the general public liked the movie while the WB felt they should have loved it. And that was the real issue. Superman Returns did make it's money back and it was suppose to get a sequel and the WB tried to get it off the ground however a lot of factors played into not having a sequel mainly the court case and the strike where the original Justice League script was suppose to tie BB and SR together. Once again as I tell people had SR opened two to three weeks earlier or in the winter you would have seen a much different box office result in its favor and a sequel by now. No one expected POTC to be as big as it was.

 

[Mr. Immortal]

I love how people like to talk about Superman Returns like it did bad and everyone hated the movie when that is far from the truth. Superman Returns did good at the box office seeing that it was a superhero movie that had little to no action and was a sequel to a 20 year old movie. Not to mention it got great reviews by not only the critics but fans as well. Also it did better than Batman Begins box office wise (another movie which almost got rebooted twice because of "poor box office results"). The problem with Superman Returns was that the general public liked the movie while the WB felt they should have loved it. And that was the real issue. Superman Returns did make it's money back and it was suppose to get a sequel and the WB tried to get it off the ground however a lot of factors played into not having a sequel mainly the court case and the strike where the original Justice League script was suppose to tie BB and SR together. Once again as I tell people had SR opened two to three weeks earlier or in the winter you would have seen a much different box office result in its favor and a sequel by now. No one expected POTC to be as big as it was.

I don't disagree with a single thing you said, and what you said doesn't really go against what I stated either. Singer behind the helm of Superman was supposed to be incredible. It was just okay.

But to be fair, it's also one of those movies that's executed with such a singular, precise vision that if someone were to go ''That's my favorite movie'' I wouldn't really think twice about it. It's not a bad movie, just not what anyone expected.

 

[jmc]

If you're talking two universes with one set of actors? A HUGE risk. There wouldn't be any same page there and it would be more confusing than trying to work within the system they have now.

In order to have a good film you need good characters. In order to have good characters you need to know the characters. You can't have characters zig-zagging and jumping all over the place. People are saying, "look to Avengers - it seems so easy! It's stand-alone." Not really. Look at the smaller details already just in character. THAT? Is perfect. It shouldn't seem difficult. It should seem flawless and remarkably easy to compose. But in order to make it seem easy to do - you have to really hit it out of the park. That's why it's getting great reviews. It just feels natural, which is not easy to accomplish.

You can't naturally have something natural. Thus an odd-I don't even know what to call it mixture but not mixture JLA film would leave heads scratching.

I'm talking about an ambiguous universe, ie all film are simply made with no connecting tissue.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Dude, all I'll say is simply impossible or you'd have remarkably bad film making.

So WWII is going to have no connection to WWI or WWIII? Same with the others?

Now, let's say you have a JLA movie thrown into the middle. That's not going to have WW in a consistent arc of character consistent with the other now unconnected WW films with just the name in common?

Film is about change, not about the plot getting shook up. Franchises are about following a character's journey of change. Not having change leads to not really having a purpose.

 

[CConn]

Dude, all I'll say is simply impossible or you'd have remarkably bad film making.

So WWII is going to have no connection to WWI or WWIII? Same with the others?

Now, let's say you have a JLA movie thrown into the middle. That's not going to have WW in a consistent arc of character consistent with the other now unconnected WW films with just the name in common?

Film is about change, not about the plot getting shook up. Franchises are about following a character's journey of change. Not having change leads to not really having a purpose.

Dammit. I had an incredible post typed out and I lost it.

Suffice it to say, you're wrong. A movie series doesn't have to be about a continuity-based progression or story arc. You could simply have a series of standalone films that each address a different aspect of the character's personality or psyche.

A good example would be Burton's Batman and Batman Returns. There were very few plot lines carried over in those films, and they were both still very good. You could do something similar with Wonder Woman, Flash, or any other character.

 

[metaphysician]

Dammit. I had an incredible post typed out and I lost it.

Suffice it to say, you're wrong. A movie series doesn't have to be about a continuity-based progression or story arc. You could simply have a series of standalone films that each address a different aspect of the character's personality or psyche.

A good example would be Burton's Batman and Batman Returns. There were very few plot lines carried over in those films, and they were both still very good. You could do something similar with Wonder Woman, Flash, or any other character.

For that to work, though, the characters themselves have to remain constant. Which means we, again, run into the problem of discontinuity between the solo movies and the JLA movie.

 

[Mr. Immortal]

Speaking of shared universes though, I'm curious about everybody's opinion. For me personally, the shared universe aspect has actually made all of the Marvel Studios' films more enjoyable as the universe itself grew. Save for CA: TFA, which was pretty isolated and I couldn't possibly have a higher opinion of anyway, the other movies were heightened in my subsequent viewings.

Iron Man II specifically didn't sit well with me the first time I saw it because it felt too much part of a shared universe, though I didn't dislike it at all. Suddenly though you have Coulson saying he's going to New Mexico, Thor coming out later, Hawkeye showing up, Avengers Initiate being discussed, and it has kind of a episodic feel.

I could see why initially someone's thinking ''that's terrible, a movie should stand completely on it's own''. But, here's a good metaphor: People generally say books are better, shows are better, etc. and I think we're all in agreement that those statements are generally true because those mediums give so much more time to flesh out the characters, develop stories and have the potential to continue endlessly so you can discuss with your friends/ponder it's future. Unlike a movie where more often than not, you'll never see those characters again.

So if you think of the MS movies as episodic in nature, I actually think it makes them better. I think if DC ever attempted a shared universe they could really build up some steam by the time a second movie hits.

EDIT: Typing all that out makes me think they shouldn't give up on acknowledging Green Lantern in the future.

 

[jmc]

Dude, all I'll say is simply impossible or you'd have remarkably bad film making.

So WWII is going to have no connection to WWI or WWIII? Same with the others?

Now, let's say you have a JLA movie thrown into the middle. That's not going to have WW in a consistent arc of character consistent with the other now unconnected WW films with just the name in common?

Film is about change, not about the plot getting shook up. Franchises are about following a character's journey of change. Not having change leads to not really having a purpose.

I'm saying just make the damn movies. You think people have gotten bent out of shape because Jame Bond films have remained inconsistent over the years? Just make the effing movies, I don't care how connected the sequels are to one and other, be like Nolan and just make the movie good, if it's good people will come. The only ones who get bent out of shape with contradictions and retcons are fanboys. I don't give a **** about long drawn out sagas that have been planned for years, I don't give a **** if this film connects with that one, I care about the film at hand and if Hollywood would focus on doing that instead of producing ******** pieces of blockbuster year after year trying to find their next merchandising product maybe we'd actually get some quality big budget cinema.

 

[Dangerman]

I don't disagree with a single thing you said, and what you said doesn't really go against what I stated either. Singer behind the helm of Superman was supposed to be incredible. It was just okay.

But to be fair, it's also one of those movies that's executed with such a singular, precise vision that if someone were to go ''That's my favorite movie'' I wouldn't really think twice about it. It's not a bad movie, just not what anyone expected.

Agreed it wasn't a movie of what some expected. I personally loved the movie and think it gave us one of the best Superman movies and stories to date. But in the same I also thought it was flawed in some areas and had Singer not cut the movie like how he did and left it untouched like how the shooting script showed I think it would have been much better. Because then you see how dark and evil and smart Lex Luthor really was and gave purpose to Kal Penn person as well. It also expanded on Superman and the whole theme behind the movie. Because of time a lot of it was cut.

But still I don't think it should be grouped in there with Green Lantern or Superman III and IV. It was not as bad as a movie as few would like to make it out to be.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Bond is a rare exception, Batman many would argue focus was on the villains. JMC your post shows no sense of logic - it takes a long time to make a quality product. Fans are the slow ones thinking film making is an instant art, THAT is how junk is made. Churned out with no thought. I mean, are you for real??? And Nolan? His films ARE consistent. Another thing beyond awkward and nonsenical in your post. There's a reason why there's years between franchise films DESPITE having the game plan YEARS before the first film. It's not "instant gratification" - THAT is how junk is made. So quit "we want it now" and understand thought is going into MAKING IT GOOD. THAT is what's taking time - something good they all agree with, one thing that complicates it - no other reason. And if JLA, need DIFFERENT cast to maintain a sense of unity or as said give it all to one company (No, WB is MULTIPLE companies) so it can be done easily but that is NOT the hold up just an explanation of why DC as is right now can't really have the connectedness that Marvel has.

Basically two points you need to learn JMC:

1) Quality films take time to make, bad blockbusters are spit out at a fast pace.

2) WB with these is a hydra three headed beast. Something needs to win over all three heads to get made (concerning DC products). As said that's the main complication.

You just seem to want a jumbled DC universe than a thought out one with JLA, which as said - is much easier to get quality with different cast or have all DC at one company than "screw it, throw random parts into a blender, hope something good comes of it." There is a much more profitable and quality efficent way to do it that is also faster.

 

[The Guard]

Captain America is more than a genetically engineered soldier. He is a propaganda character, a relic of the past, and pretty much a boy scout. We really haven't seen anything like this. Surely nothing that could be considered a summer tentpole. Characters like Captain America or Superman are difficult to pull off these days because audiences expect characters like Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, Han Solo, Indiana Jones, Wolverine, James Bond, Jack Sparrow, Peter Parker, etc.

I'm boiling this down to general concepts. I know what Captain America is. Work with me a little here.

Here's what you said

Captain America and Thor are difficult characters to adapt for movies and audiences. Allowing these iffy concepts/fringe characters to become even more unusual/bizarre could have easily blown up in Marvel's face"

You said this, implying that A, he is difficult to adapt, and that B, he is an iffy/fringe character, IE, something outside the norm people are used to. But he's not.

We really haven't seen anything like this.

Except we have, because we've seen previous Captain America adaptions. In previous Captain America movies, serials, cartoons, etc. Recently, we have not seen a superhero movie featuring these elements, no. But if that's your argument, that we haven't seen a Summer tentpole movie featuring Captain America, well, obviously, no, we have not. Before CAPTAIN AMERICA, we'd not seen a Captain America movie since 1990.

But let's look at what he actually is, an whether we've seen this in film and TV recently.

-He is a good man/boyscout. That is not a new concept. Superman is the most shining example of this, but there have been other characters with these traits on film, TV, etc, for a long time.
-He is a genetically engineered soldier. That is also not a new concept. Again, this is something we see on film and TV fairly often.
-He is patriotic propaganda. That is not a new concept either, not is it a particularly difficult one to grasp, even overseas, where it may not be as appreciated, but can certainly be understood. Again, Superman could fall into this category, as could any number of solider, government and police characters seen on film and TV over the years.

I'll give you that "relic of the past" element is a bit new, but lets not pretend that the lion's share of the movie revolved around that theme. His role in THE AVENGERS supposedly does.

Yes, Captain America is a unique superhero. But he's still a superhero, made up of identifiable concepts that people have been exposed to many times, and responded to favorably. Captain America didn't become wildly popular over the years because he wasn't relatable or easy to understand. He became popular because a lot of people like him because he is, and because he is interesting.

Characters like Captain America or Superman are difficult to pull off these days because audiences expect characters like Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, Han Solo, Indiana Jones, Wolverine, James Bond, Jack Sparrow, Peter Parker, etc.

Ok...you just listed a variety of popular characters, some dark, some lighter. I have no idea what your point was in doing that. So...audiences expect a range of darker and lighter characters? Doesn't that bode well for Captain America in general, who ideally treads on both sides? What was your point in listing those names?

Also, WWII is a very risky subject. Especially when the movie is a PG-13 summer movie and aimed at a global, young audience. The war is still a very touchy subject around the world and Marvel had to be extremely careful on how it was portrayed.

You are talking about an American propaganda character in a post-9/11 era of anti-Americanism in a movie where people assume it will portray American winning WWII single-handedly. They had to deal with that and the challenge of not making the movie cheesy. Take a look at the box office returns of WWII movies. It's not an easy sell.

Your argument seems to be that WWII is a risky subject...when it's a Captain America Summer tentpole movie. I'm honestly not sure what you're basing that on. Obviously it's not that touchy a subject, because it made a ton of money, being just that.

You know what else is a touchy subject? Genetic experimentation. Playing God. The abuse of power. And yet people respond to these subjects with interest thoughout sci-fi, horror and fantasy adaption history.

WWII has been a risk and a fascination with various cultures. That can't really be denied. Boring, derivative WWII projects are a risk. Absolutely.

But the Indiana Jones movies featured Nazis, HELLBOY featured Nazis...

SCHINDLER'S LIST made $321 million worldwide on a $22 million budget

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN made $481 million on a budget of $70 million.

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS made $321 million on a budget of $70 million.

And in some ways, its even more a testament to the idea that people respond to well made/fun WWII films because some of these WERE "R" rated films, which tend to make less money.

THE ROCKETEER made some money even though it wasn't terribly well made.
No, these movies were not Captain America.

It seems to me, that if WWII movies are very well made, and include good drama, or fun elements, then people tend to show up.

Marvel should be given high praise for it's success. It is the most difficult superhero to pull off and they did a great job with it. The movie was a hit, got pretty high praise, and from what I hear, flows nicely into Avengers.

In your opinion he's the most difficult superhero to pull off. In mine, an American propaganda character that is such a boyscout that he has fewer moral gray areas in many versions is infinitely easier to pull off than say, The Punisher, or the X-Men, or Thor or Iron Man or The Hulk. I'm aware of the requirements in adapting Captain America, but they don't make adapting him any more impossible or difficult than adapting any other character.

There's always going to be risk to a big budget tentpole film. I'm not denying that. But that's not a good reason to "gloss over" what was happening in the world the time, which was what Captain America more or less did, or to shy away from those themes. I enjoyed the movie. and I have given Marvel praise for its success. I feel that it could have, and can, do better.

Those aren't quite on the same level as CA.

You're right, they aren't Captain America itself. And few things have been, because few things have been 2011's CAPTAIN AMERICA. But they are on the same level in terms of concept. Characters audiences aren't familiar with getting a bigger budget.

THE FANTASTIC FOUR certainly is on the same level. Most people didn't even know who The Fantastic Four were, and certainly not as well as Captain America. Yet it got a $100 million budget, which at the time, was comparable to Captain America's $150 million now, as superhero movies cost a bit less to make back then.

Captain America was Marvel's big movie and a key cog to the Avengers. The rest of those movies were financed by major studios without really that much risk.

You don't think DAREDEVIL was a risk? THE PUNISHER? GHOST RIDER? HELLBOY, BLADE and SPAWN Apparently "much risk" means they didn't put up as much money. It's not quite that simple conceptually, though.

Norse mythology is unique to the big screen compared to Greek mythology. Aside from Beowulf, what other live action movies come to mind? The notion of Asgard and Norse gods living in the same universe as us is a bizarre concept for most people. You may not remember but there was alot of people doubting they could even pull this off and the movie not being horrible.

Yes, its unique in that Norse Mythology is not Green Mythology, and that Norse Mythology is less exposed, sure. I'm really not going to get into this nonsensical "That's not the same!" thing you're doing. Mythology is ultimately mythology. There have been adaptions of both. Norse mythology has been onscreen before. The 13th Warrior was pretty good. There have been more than a few movies about vikings, warriors, several Beowulf/Grendel adaptions, and I think that How To Train Your Dragon was Norse-inspired.

The notion of Asgard and Norse gods living in the same universe as us is a bizarre concept for most people. You may not remember but there was alot of people doubting they could even pull this off and the movie not being horrible.

Yes, it is a bizarre concept. But audiences tend to LIKE a lot of the bizarre concepts. They respond to them. People don't go to blockbuster movies to see everyday life. They go to see bizarre or interesting concepts.

Oh no, I recall that. I don't why anyone would doubt they'd be able to pull this off. The approach was fairly safe. The director was fantastic. The cast was very good. And the comics have pulled off these stories for years, as have other Thor/Norse adaptions.

This whole safe/unsafe thing is completely ridiculous. Almost all movies have 'safe' plot points. The Dark Knight included and certainly every other superhero movie. You are splitting hairs here.

I don't think it is ridiculous. There's a clear difference in the creative approach taken with certain films. It's kind of been you that's splitting hairs. Trying to boil down everything I say into "but that's different".

There's a very clear creative approach in The DARK KNIGHT that isn't as safe and generic as other films. That's just not arguable. Ditto SUPERMAN RETURNS, X-MEN, and several other recent superhero films.

CAPTAIN AMERICA cannot boast this. It presents fairly obvious morality, little villain depth, little exploration of its core concepts, and is mostly focused on
story and action after the initial third of the film.

I personally don't think it's a 'safe' plot having Norse gods travelling to the earth via wormholes. To the general audience, it's still a pretty silly concept. Nor do I think anything regarding the scenes in Asgard are 'safe'.

That's not a plot, though. That's an event within the plot.

THOR was a superhero movie featuring stylized adaptions of Norse gods. In context, the wormhole is nothing more than a plot device.

Aliens, life in other parts of the universe, mythological gods and superheroes...these things themselves are no longer "unsafe" concepts in film.

Simply using them doesn't make for a deep or film. They are very accepted in fantasy, sci fi, and myth, and have been widely used for a long time.

Likewise, the concept of wormholes has existed in both science and Sci Fi for a long time. STAR TREK, STARGATE, Justice League, etc. It's a somewhat unique concept, but it's not so out there that it would make people question anything, or so odd that it challenges anything.

And that's where THOR is safe. There's nothing in the movie that challenges social convention or audience expectations except what happens with Thor and Jane at the end. If THOR had featured Loki coming to Earth and say, actually killing a ton of people, then it wouldn't have been as safe. It would have pushed a boundary to a point.

But the basic plot is about a man/superhero redeeming himself and taking responsibility for his life so he can reach his full potential, because he was arrogant and failed his friends and family and kingdom. That is not terribly unique. It is a very safe approach to characterization. We've seen it before.
And executionwise, it's all handled rather safely. There is very little question about who is right or wrong in the film. No true moral gray areas. Thor finds out that he was wrong to be so arrogant, and that he has to use his power responsibility. And there's a son who hates this father because he was lied to and turns evil because of it, and because he's jealous. And Thor has to fight him, because its right. And it still works, and well. Its entertaining, and theres a lot to like about it. And it's safe.

Let me ask...what, besides wormholes, do you feel is so unsafe about it?

That's the characters story arc. You start changing too much and it begins to look stupid. Captain America has to be a weakling that turns into a peak human being. He has to freeze and sleep in a block of ice for decades. Not having those two aspects of his character would be like Spider-Man not getting bit, Bruce Wayne's parents being alive, and Iron Man not building his suit in captivity

I'm not advocating the character's story arc it to be changed much, I'm advocating for it to be explored with a little more depth. I'm pointing out that fans knowing what is going to happen with Captain America is not a "problem" in adapting the character, and not an appropriate excuse for the movie being made predictable and safe.

cough* Honestly, I think Thor was the riskier film than Captain America. Captain America is basically pulp adventure in WWII, and that is fairly well trod territory. Thor, OTOH, deals with Kirby cosmic stuff, and tied to the somewhat lesser known Norse mythology ( as opposed to Greek myth ). But that's my take on the matter.

I would agree. THOR is a more unique and culturally complex concept, with more fantastic elements. And it was a deeper and more interesting film than CAPTAIN AMERICA in many respects.

I mean really, I was willing to concede that those movies were somewhat safe but with all the great points everyone has brought up I don't even think it's the case. They assessed the mountains of risks and played the odds perfectly and with intelligence. And when it all boils down to it, any year+ project that takes millions of dollars to generate is not safe.

There's a difference between "easy" and "safe".

I'm not talking about the challenges or the risk of making a movie, but in handling the creative material. While I don't think it's the most difficult thing in the world to do, I would never call that process easy. You need talent, good collaboration, and more than a little luck. "Safe" refers to an actual approach to characterization, themes explored, and story points.

And see, that's what it needed. Even just one scene, a single scene like the one in The Ultimates would've been enough to really set the tone as a serious war film.

Agreed. The war montage was nice, but there needed to be something that set the stakes beyond "Oh no, Hydra may continue to exist". Not just "We're at war". Why do they have to WIN the war? Why is it different, in context, than any other war? Because The Red Skull and Hydra will take over? Why? What does he want to DO? How does that intersect with the concept of the perfect man, with Captain America's very nature? What does it mean for Steve Rogers to become a soldier, other than just becoming a soldier?

I don't think we'd be having some of these debates if both Marvel and DC fans would just admit the following

1.All films have cliche elements, and superhero films have expected elements. Cliche can be executed well, so that it feels fresh and less "generic", but many films don't.

2. The Marvel Studios films have tended to be relatively straighforward and safe, with less introspection, but have still been rather satisfying and very fun.

3. The WB/DC films have been tended bit more introspective in their character explorations, but in some ways, have suffered for not being as faithful or action-oriented/fun.

4. A balance of the two approaches would be amazing for most fans.

There seems to be a reluctance to be honest about these films on both sides. I honestly don't care which company makes better films. I want great films across the board. I want filmmakers to learn from each other.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that all of DC's films, and even other Marvel superhero films, have got flaws. Chris Nolan's Batman films and the X-Men movies could be more faithful, and more subtle, and would be better for it. SUPERMAN RETURNS didn't focus on what really makes the character interesting. GREEN LANTERN could be a lot more serious and structured better. WATCHMEN could have been less dour. CAPTAIN AMERICA and THOR (and likely THE AVENGERS) could have been a little deeper.

 

[Mr. Immortal]

Guard, I'll make this is as simple as I can.

List the amount of popular non-children movies in the past 20 years that featured a by-the-book true blue clean cut lawful good paladin main character.

Now list the amount of popular non-children movies in the past 20 years that featured a morally gray rebel badass willing to break the rules main character.

Is something clicking in there? God, I hope so. Clean cut heroes have been accepted before, but in this particular climate of movie making they ARE a hard sell. It is not debatable. Stop arguing. Accept that fact. You know it.

 

[The Guard]

In order to have a good film you need good characters. In order to have good characters you need to know the characters. You can't have characters zig-zagging and jumping all over the place. People are saying, "look to Avengers - it seems so easy! It's stand-alone." Not really. Look at the smaller details already just in character. THAT? Is perfect. It shouldn't seem difficult. It should seem flawless and remarkably easy to compose. But in order to make it seem easy to do - you have to really hit it out of the park. That's why it's getting great reviews. It just feels natural, which is not easy to accomplish.

It may not be easy. But it is possible.

If you need to know the characters, then write characters who can be known, be it in solo movies or in a JLA film. Plenty of esemble films have had good characters without having to have had previous solo movies to introduce these very easy, relatable concepts.

For that to work, though, the characters themselves have to remain constant. Which means we, again, run into the problem of discontinuity between the solo movies and the JLA movie

So have them remain constant. Or at least similar.

I'm saying just make the damn movies. You think people have gotten bent out of shape because Jame Bond films have remained inconsistent over the years? Just make the effing movies, I don't care how connected the sequels are to one and other, be like Nolan and just make the movie good, if it's good people will come. The only ones who get bent out of shape with contradictions and retcons are fanboys. I don't give a **** about long drawn out sagas that have been planned for years, I don't give a **** if this film connects with that one, I care about the film at hand and if Hollywood would focus on doing that instead of producing ******** pieces of blockbuster year after year trying to find their next merchandising product maybe we'd actually get some quality big budget cinema.

This. Make them, and make them well, as as in FIRST CLASS, and general audiences aren't going to care that Xavier can walk past a certain point in his life in X3, and isn't in FIRST CLASS's canon. Fans are going to *****, but fans will ALWAYS ***** about one thing or another.

I'll be a tad more specific then. Is there an option simply to make a series of solos each of which are treated as there own franchise/universe and then using the same actors for a JL that is also treated as its own thing, ie keep it ambiguous any connections. No. It would confuse the audience. Studios would never take such a risk. Because in the off-set that the audience believes it's the same universe, things would go bonkers and heads would be spinning in the audience trying to weave everything together. You could say business-wise a lot in the studio system, myself included, distrust the audience but you have to remember there is a reason why we sometimes see them as slow:

WB considered doing just that, though. Yes, they backed off it, but the concept was considered.

Some audiences are slow. Some people are stupid, or simply lack knowledge about a particular story or character. But...audiences can't figure out that Batman is Batman, and Superman is Superman, because a different actor is playing them?

Sure, some people will be confused, but, like the questions surrounding BATMAN BEGINS, SUPERMAN RETURNS/MAN OF STEEL, and the SPIDER-MAN reboot, people will eventually figure it out.

That these are characters, that each story with a character is a different story involving that character, and that the actors playing them are actors playing the characters, and that more than one actor can represent the character.

Otherwise, why is WB risking MAN OF STEEL after SUPERMAN RETURNS, and not casting Brandon Routh?

Prior beliefs:
1) Batman Begins being a prequel to Tim Burton's 'Batman.'

Due to Chris Nolan's need to be secretive, and a lack of knowing that it wasn't. For a while, even fans weren't sure. So you show that it isn't. They found out it wasn't, and those with critical thinking skills have no issues now.

2) Wondering if Superman will be in 'The Avengers' (some have asked this).

Due to a lack of knowledge about what The Avengers are. So you show that he isn't, and you show what The Avengers are. Problem solved. Not that this was ever actually a tangible problem to begin with.

You can't naturally have something natural. Thus an odd-I don't even know what to call it mixture but not mixture JLA film would leave heads scratching. [/'quote]

So create something natural.

Surely there were kids who watched the animated JUSTICE LEAGUE and JUSTICE LEAGUE UNLIMITED shows. Does JUSTICE LEAGUE: CRISIS ON TWO EARTHS or JUSTICE LEAGUE: DOOM or now leave them scratching their heads over what's going.

I doubt it. Because people know it's still the Justice League. And that it's a story about the Justice League.

And those that can't figure this kind of thing out, the ones that lack the critical thinking skills to grasp the obvious...I'm not terribly concerned about tailoring the film to them, and neither should a major studio be. People go see things because they like the concept, or because they're told to.

Maybe - but TA is getting such incredible reviews, better than TDK, and is possibly poised to beat TDKR at the BO - I think it's equally as likely TA will scare WB away from doing JL. Out of fear and not being able to match what looks like the penultimate superhero film to date.

They won't look at it in a vaccuum. If THE AVENGERS does big business and THE DARK KNIGHT cleans up again...I fully expect WB to consider both solo and JLA films ASAP. Which they've already been doing.

The goal to a DC universe should be getting the heroes out there, and in the case of a JLA film, together, and then secondarily, to avoiding confusing people as much as possible, but that shouldn't be the only creative focus.

This "Elseworlds" thing, the idea of characters coming from other dimensions or other "univeses" is a bad idea. Will confuse people. Because its needlessly complex.

Nor do I see any need to copy Marvel's "Here's Fury to draw them together as a team", "here's an item that can figure into the next film" approach, or a need to introduce supporting characters in each film. It's not neccessary.

WB doesn't need Amanda Waller to form the JLA, and doesn't need The Spear of Destiny to factor into several films, or to have a hero show up in another heroe's film. And Marvel's gotten there first, so it's more or less Marvel's plan and Marvel's domain. So WB should do something different.

If what Ultimatehero is saying is true, and its really that hard to get all the companies on the same page to make a shared universe, then don't even mess with it.

This is the point where some common sense has to come into play.

Marvel tried something, and it worked. WB is probably not going to want to wait to make solo films, then make AVENGERS type money.

They will want AVENGERS type money as soon as possible.

So they will probably make a JUSTICE LEAGUE film/franchise a reality very soon. And if that is a smash hit, we will see solo movies.

Regardless of which comes first, solo films or a Justice League movie, it would be easier just to make solo films that don't confirm or deny whether there are other heroes existing in their respective worlds, becuase honestly, it shouldn't MATTER that much. If the story being told doesnt involve two heroes meeting, then it should not matter whether "Themyscira" exists somewhere else when Batman is worried about what's going on in Gotham City. It's missing the point entirely to focus on such things. And there has to be some kind of focus, or creatively, the movies are going to be messy.

Whether its mentioned as containing other heroes or not, Wonder Woman's world is still her world, just as my reality is mine, and someone else's is someone else's.

And whether they're played by different actors or not, propertly executed, Superman is Superman. Batman is Batman.

Different writers/actors/directors wil always produce variances in the characters, but the characters are still the characters. Fans have seen different writers and artists work on characters over the years, and they're still the characters. Why can't that work for the movie franchises?

The fan need to compartmentalize things into "universes" is one of the worst things to come out of superhero comics and films. Why can't a story about Batman be a story about Batman?

 

[Micromind]

I would prefer a Justice League team of only Five superheros (Superman, Batman, Wonder woman, Flash and Green Lantern.) as Seven superheroes just make it look ridiculous.

Now, out of these Five I think Superman, Batman and Green Lantern are already well known, their origins are well known, the characters need no introduction. Wonder Woman is also fairly recognized character.

So, only team member that needs a solo movie is Flash, after that WB can just make a Justice League movie. (WW can have a prequel movie later, if JL proves to be successful.)

 

[roach]

look there is more than one way to skin this cat...they can do it as Marvel did and build up to the event movie...or build from it
Imagine a JL movie that showcases the seven main heroes and then build up the hype for solo movies.....think of Avengers, from all reports Hulk steals the show...there will be a lot of hype for a Hulk solo movie

 

[The Guard]

Guard, I'll make this is as simple as I can.

List the amount of popular non-children movies in the past 20 years that featured a by-the-book true blue clean cut lawful good paladin main character.

Now list the amount of popular non-children movies in the past 20 years that featured a morally gray rebel badass willing to break the rules main character.

Is something clicking in there? God, I hope so. Clean cut heroes have been accepted before, but in this particular climate of movie making they ARE a hard sell. It is not debatable. Stop arguing. Accept that fact. You know it.

Never said being a boyscout was common. Just that we'd seen these types of characters.

I'm well aware that people embrace morally gray characters, and that the majority of fims feature morally gray characters and situations to a degree.

I haven't seen audiences outright reject morally absolute characters. There just haven't been many movies centering on them made, period, for a long time. The two major franchises that I can think of, Superman and Captain America, have been very popular for the most part.

But moral, upstanding characters? PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL. LORD OF THE RINGS has Frodo and Sam. I think it can be argued that HARRY POTTER's a bit of a Boy Scout. As is SPIDER-MAN. Sam Witwicky in TRANSFORMERS is a decent sort of fellow. You've got Cyclops in X-MEN.

And TRAINING DAY, TRAFFIC and THE DEPARTED feature by the book characters.

Frankly, ALL superheroes tend to be morally gray, because they are willing to go outside the law to do what they consider right. Because by nature, supeheroes aren't boyscouts. They're lawbreaking vigilantes.

 

[Ultimatehero]

By that I meant the amount of work it took into bringing them all together. The most striking would have been Iron Man and Thor. They solved this with magic equates technology for instance. Tone is a major one they kept in line while allowing solo films to seem drastically different. That took work.

Constant signals no change. Also keep in mind neither Bond nor Batman really have ever had a key supporting cast (outside of just 'functions' or 'foils'). That's another key area where these properties differ. Or at least when talking Burton's Batman. Similar - yes, but again to be similar you need to be in communication. Main reason why it's easier to just do a stand-alone JLA film.

When saying "make them!" that's beyond simplifying things. Films take a long time. DC properties take an even longer time because anyone approaching them is facing a hydra lol. That's a challenge even Hercules had difficulty with.

Guard you're mishearing what J wanted - same actors for different interpretations of said character. Meaning an actor playing the character in Earth One and Earth Two for instance (unsure if I got that right, don't have that much knowledge lol - but I think that comparison works). Audiences would easily know it's the character with two different actors playing them. What they would have difficulty with is understanding an actor playing two DIFFERENT INCARNATIONS of said character, they'd think it's the same version. I was the one saying different actors for different variations on said character. J was saying same actors for different variations - unless you think audiences can really get elseworlds in the film world? Even there we have different looking characters due to artist shake-ups. Basically have Keaton in all variations of Batman - now tell audiences that despite them all being played by Keaton, the films don't have anything in common. I can't even get my head wrapped around that one. It would seem like a mess.

Read the above. And tell me you're not baffled by the Keaton idea.

Making a Justice League movie is easy. Combining universes isn't. And using the same actor for TWO VARIATIONS that have NOTHING in common? Yeah, audiences (think Keaton example) probably would feel dizzy. This is why it's best to use different actors for different incarnations of said character - in other words two actors playing Batman, rather than one and telling them all his Batman films have nothing in common. That's why I kept bringing their previous attempt up because in-company model, that's the most efficient way currently to do it and why they were going to do it that way.

What Ultimatehero is saying IS true. I have first-hand knowledge man.

EXACTLY. The best means to go and the easiest is one film universe is about the JLA the other film universe is these characters solo. As it stands - combining them would just make a mess of things. But, you can easily have two film universes going on at the same time and the audience won't get confused (just two universes, same actor - yeah, even I'm confused on how that would work (Keaton example)).

IF WB sets it all up at company then and only then could a combined universe JLA film be really possible. Because then you can keep all the decks in check. Not tying them along. But making sure the character progression remains at a constant - here you're also dealing with supporting characters that progress and not just the hero (as said another key difference from Bond and Burton's Batman). Starting with JLA - you'd still be entering the same problem with JLA2 just later on, thus the need of either option 1 or option 2. It's a great idea in theory UNTIL JLA 2.

Hey, Guard, I'm the one guy saying have JLA and the solo films exist separately with nothing similar except for the character as option 1. Option 2 being bring all the characters together under one company (which confuses people because they see WB as just one company, when in fact it's several) so progression will seem natural - not for them to be linked together, not needed. MARVEL that's easy because that's how the MARVEL universe works, not the same with DC - so there it's just a matter of character progression needing to be consistent especially since there are key supporting characters. All other options are zany and not really looking at the business-end of things.

 

[CConn]

For that to work, though, the characters themselves have to remain constant. Which means we, again, run into the problem of discontinuity between the solo movies and the JLA movie.

How do they have to remain consistent?

 

[metaphysician]

How do they have to remain consistent?

Because your trying to leverage a status quo setup. If the movies are not dependent on dramatic progression for the main character, because said main character is a fixed center point, with plot happening to him? Then he actually has to be a fixed center point; there has to be an actual status quo to abide to.

The main character either has to have consistent character development, or he has to have a consistent fixed characterization. If not either, than your really not even dealing with a single character anymore.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Because your trying to leverage a status quo setup. If the movies are not dependent on dramatic progression for the main character, because said main character is a fixed center point, with plot happening to him? Then he actually has to be a fixed center point; there has to be an actual status quo to abide to.

The main character either has to have consistent character development, or he has to have a consistent fixed characterization. If not either, than your really not even dealing with a single character anymore.

Exactly. People saying start with JLA then, you're forgetting what happens once JLA 2 rolls about or just have only ONE JLA film - business wise that's not a good move. Plus, you'd be skipping the origins - it would be better for just two film universes because of that in my fan opinion. Gotta see things from a business and fan perspective. People may hate the business perspective, but personally find it similarly as fascinating.

 

[Tobias]

I would prefer a Justice League team of only Five superheros (Superman, Batman, Wonder woman, Flash and Green Lantern.) as Seven superheroes just make it look ridiculous.

Now, out of these Five I think Superman, Batman and Green Lantern are already well known, their origins are well known, the characters need no introduction. Wonder Woman is also fairly recognized character.

So, only team member that needs a solo movie is Flash, after that WB can just make a Justice League movie. (WW can have a prequel movie later, if JL proves to be successful.)

5 members yes but drop Supes.

The focus has to be on the "new" DC characters. Batman will be able to get the extra time in a JL film needed to help make it huge if the time is taken from what would have been time spent on Superman.

The GA is not going to notice.

 

[roach]

Exactly. People saying start with JLA then, you're forgetting what happens once JLA 2 rolls about or just have only ONE JLA film - business wise that's not a good move. Plus, you'd be skipping the origins - it would be better for just two film universes because of that in my fan opinion. Gotta see things from a business and fan perspective. People may hate the business perspective, but personally find it similarly as fascinating.

that would make no sense to have two universes
Starting with a JLA movie doesn't screw anything up.
You start with a JLA movie...big budget...no solo explanations(like X-men). Let the hype build for characters. Do solo movies and use them to build to JLA2.

Just because Marvel did it one way doesn't mean its the only way to do something

 

[roach]

5 members yes but drop Supes.

The focus has to be on the "new" DC characters. Batman will be able to get the extra time in a JL film needed to help make it huge if the time is taken from what would have been time spent on Superman.

The GA is not going to notice.

whats the purpose of doing this if you exclude Superman???

 

[Cain]

that would make no sense to have two universes
Starting with a JLA movie doesn't screw anything up.
You start with a JLA movie...big budget...no solo explanations(like X-men). Let the hype build for characters. Do solo movies and use them to build to JLA2.

Just because Marvel did it one way doesn't mean its the only way to do something

But you can't do that if one production company doesn't have the rights to both use these heroes in JL movies AND in solo movies. Which is the case. DC still has optioned the rights to many different people in hollywood over the years even though they're not DC Entertainment and still get involved. You have to remember that even JLA features Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and etc. it doesn't mean Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and etc. aren't their own independent brands.

Meaning if somebody has the rights to make a JL movie it doesn't mean they also have the rights to produce Batman & Superman movies. In the case of a JL film since the film rights holders behind JL Mortal aren't the same ones with the film rights to Batman or Superman it's safe to assume somebody else still does have the rights to the JLA movie while Legendary have Superman & Batman.

It's not all under one umbrella like ultimatehero has explained in here many times. The film rights to DC entertainment's catalog are tied in with different production companies. Not all under the same roof. Their best option is just to make stand alone movies for every brand including JL with that type of structure.