The anti-JLA movie people are not a homogenous group, and there are different opinions.
Well, duh. I'm just summarizing the most popular opinion. Or, at least, the opinion I've seen the most of.
Some people are Nolan/"realism" purists, and don't want to see Nolan's Batman (or Batman period) in the movie, because they think there's too much fantasy and scifi in it. I don't agree with that view, since Batman has a long history with the JLA, and the JLA is supposed to be an All-Star team of the world's greatest heroes. And even Batman Begins was science fiction, with "memory cloth" gliding wings, roof-jumping cars, and a high-tech microwave weapon which can vaporize water but somehow not harm people standing right next to it.
I agree.
A lot of people like continuity. Ongoing continuity between movies makes the fictional universe a lot richer, and gives fans who stick around a much more rewarding feeling. I want the JLA movie to be a big payoff after DC's primary heroes are properly introduced. I also think that Bale's Batman is the definitive movie portrayal, and want to see more of him.
Y'know, I really haven't heard of anyone argue for continuity. It's either for separation, or - like you - they just think Bale's the best and they want him to be in every movie that has Batman in it.
That said, I do not understand nor agree with that concept of limiting yourself to one actor and one portrayal of a character. All it does is LIMIT the character, all it does is LIMIT what we - as an audience - are getting from these differing films and interpretations. To purposefully, willfully turn away from something new and something different and be so rigidly set on one actor, one interpretation is - to me - a very ignorant and stubborn way of thinking. It's certainly not one I could ever agree with.
The question shouldn't be how long the movies take to film (since it's going to be approximately the same for all movies), but how long they were planned. Both Batman Begins and Superman Returns were in development in one form or another for years.
No, "one form or another" doesn't count. The Tim Burton Superman movie had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the Singer Superman movie and did nothing for it. If anything, it hurt it.
Each project, by each different director/producer/whatever is a protect in and of itself. I know neither Batman Begins with Nolan as its director - nor Superman Returns with Singer - were in pre-production for very long. When WB heard Nolan and Singer's respective pitches, they moved both films along VERY quickly. Which is a good thing. If you have direction, if you have a script, you should move ahead with a movie.
And, again, you DO NOT need 5 years of planning in "one form or another" for a movie to be good. As I said, if anything, that could actually hurt the movie's creative and financial success as much as help it.
They were also movies that were not trying to pull off anything nearly as big as the Justice League movie is trying to. The way things are turning out, the movie will be trying to introduce a half dozen, if not more major characters with vastly different backgrounds, who have never appeared in movies before. And it's pretty much a sure bet that in any Justice League movie, Batman and Superman will be given the lion's share of the focus. I'm not very confident that characters like the Flash, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, or Aquaman will be fleshed out very much at all. And according to some rumors, Martian Manhunter (a founder, and the member with the longest service on the team) won't even be in the movie.
But that really doesn't have anything to do with the amount of time this movie has to be produced. Y'know, if the movie's only two hours long, 50 years of pre-production and planning won't save it from shortchanging a character or two.
That - along with MM not being in it - is a SCRIPT problem. And again, I can't argue with anyone who has a script problem.
I will argue, however, that X-Men - a multi-character film like JLA would be, wasn't even two hours long, dealt with just as many characters as a JLA movie would, and - unfortunately - under characterized one or two, but it was still VERY well received, and did VERY well critically and financially. But, again, that's a seperate matter not pertaining to production time in the least.
But DO they have a good script? No one can say for sure until they've read it. But I can say that there are red flags raising my concern, such as the WB blatantly giving up on developing solo movies (all their plans thus far have failed), the rush to push this movie out the door, rumors of Batman and Superman being written "younger," etc.
But that's my point; we don't know the quality of the script. I'm not assuming it's good. I'm just saying, you really can't assume it's bad either. At this point.
But, like I said, if you don't like the idea of Maxwell Lord, or OMAC being in it, I'm FINE with you not liking the idea of the movie. That is, IMO, a perfectly legitimate complaint, and one I can't argue with...unlike the several I listed above.
I don't think there's a lot of people actually saying that George Miller is a bad director. Rather, there are concerns that he was picked ONLY because Happy Feet, a recent children's movie, was successful. A "who's hot" pick, rather than choosing a director because the WB actually thought he would do a good job. IF the WB wants him to turn out a family-friendly money maker, they could restrict and pressure him into dumbing down the movie.
But we don't know if they want that. That's a complete and utter BLIND assumption. There's ABSOLUTELY no actual evidence to back that up in any way, shape, or form.
What IS factual, what we DO have evidence of, is that Miller is a good director - and THAT'S what we should be paying attention to - not conspiracy theories we're cooking up in our own heads.
