http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1686653/justice-league-movie.jhtml
Basically, some info about renewed plans for a terrible Justice League movie.
First of all, three people wrote Green Lantern? Gross, go sell vacuums, you all suck.
Then one of them gets to write Wonder Woman, which can't possibly be good- but I don't care. And the other two are writing The Flash because God hates me. The Flash should be one of the best superhero movies once you put in costume changes and take liberties with his terrible enemy names. But with the GL writers? No chance of getting a good story. I'm sure there are plenty of proven writers who could have delivered something good.
WB's plan is to make 2 more crappy movies and combine them into a huge crappy movie and just make infinity dollars anyway, and it will probably work. But it's depressing that they'd let bad writers make more scripts, especially after seeing Avengers movies prove how fans will appreciate quality. I feel like since you can get ticket sales with crappy reviews and a garbage script if you deliver hot sexy cgi action, they are just saying all they care about is money and don't want to use their resources to make the world a better place like Marvel Studios has. Maybe Superman will be good, but given the fact that the studio didn't care for these others gives me doubt. The worst is that I'll still go see all of these anyway.
I smell the burning fires of a train wreck somewhere off in the horizon.
So, taking BWPS's hyperbole with a grain of salt, I did a little looking (granted, mostly on IMDB), and it looks like the linked article left out a few details.
IMDB doesn't have a listing for Wonder Woman at all. Same for the Justice League movie, at least not attached to Beall. This may change soon, if the facts of the Variety story are straight.
There were *four* writers attached to Green Lantern, the fourth being Greg Berlanti, who's also listed as being along for the script-ride of the Flash movie. Of the three of them on that project, none of them have any real movie story/screenplay experience outside of GL, with the exception of Greg, but I don't know if Wrath of the Titans really inspires confidence. Most of all of their writing experience has been for TV.
Speaking of TV, Guggenheim and Berlanti are listed as story writers for the pilot of Arrow, due out in Sep, with Guggenheim and Andrew Kreisberg handling the teleplay. Kreisberg at least inspires confidence, as he's written episodes of JLU, The Clone Wars, Fringe, and Warehouse 13.
What *is* listed for Goldenberg is that he's writing the script for GL2. He at least has some experience writing movies (Contact, the recent Peter Pan, and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix).
On the other hand, Beall has only written 5 episodes of the show Castle (I'm not familiar with it), and "edited" 32 of them (including his 5, I'm assuming), as well as the not-quite-yet released Gangster Squad. Is he really *that* good of a writer to be given responsibility for what should be 3 big-budget movies, when his only other screenplay hasn't even hit the theaters yet?
Overall, I'm not inclined to hold my breath for Flash or Justice League. Given the issues that the Wonder Woman property has had up til now, I'd like to be optimistic, but I'm having a hard time clinging to that. But, really, is it like we're going to end up with a batch of movies that make us compare them unfavorably to Superman 4 (or even Returns), Batman & Robin, or Ghostrider 2? Sadly, I suppose it actually is possible.
Castle is, to be a fair, a very good show with some clever writing, so that's not a bad thing, necessarily. Still is a pretty thin resume though.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on June 06, 2012, 07:21:25 PM
Castle is, to be a fair, a very good show with some clever writing, so that's not a bad thing, necessarily. Still is a pretty thin resume though.
Castle, in my opinion, has become the worst written cop show on television. It's a severe waste of a lot of talented acting and likable characters. I went from watching it religiously to writing horrible facebook comments begging them to write better to giving up completely. I didn't know that guy wrote for Castle, that seems like proof the stars are aligning to annoy me in a very personal and specific way.
Despite my obvious pessimism, I really DO want to see more DC movies, especially some epic Justice League ones. I just really, REALLY want them to be well done if they make them.
Quote from: oldmanwinters on June 06, 2012, 09:44:18 PM
Despite my obvious pessimism, I really DO want to see more DC movies, especially some epic Justice League ones. I just really, REALLY want them to be well done if they make them.
I think "Man of Steel" is going to one of those well done DC movies.
Quote from: BWPS on June 06, 2012, 09:16:24 PM
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on June 06, 2012, 07:21:25 PM
Castle is, to be a fair, a very good show with some clever writing, so that's not a bad thing, necessarily. Still is a pretty thin resume though.
Castle, in my opinion, has become the worst written cop show on television. It's a severe waste of a lot of talented acting and likable characters. I went from watching it religiously to writing horrible facebook comments begging them to write better to giving up completely. I didn't know that guy wrote for Castle, that seems like proof the stars are aligning to annoy me in a very personal and specific way.
Castle is my very favorite detective show. Oh well then.
Haven't watched it, but I've heard nothing but good things from those who have. I'm just OCD about watching shows from the start, and I haven't had the time.
That said, I have 0 confidence in these choices. They just scream "We're making this on the cheap," which is not the impression you want to send when you're still recovering from the kick to the nuts that was Green Lantern's failure.
Does anyone other than me think the general public would see this as an Avengers knockoff trying to capture a success it can't possibly begin to capitalize on?
I don't want to say you can't capture lightning in a bottle twice, The Avengers was special. The cast was right. The build up was stellar. The movie itself was unprecedented. It had the ambitions dreams are made of. And the actual movie itself was all the ingredients needed. It was funny. The characters were sold. The action was beyond reproach. It was written and performed better than I think any of us imagined. It was a hardcore comic book movie that engulfed mainstream audiences and took them by surprise as well as us.
Does anyone really see Justice League being able to accomplish even half that? Whether it does or doesn't, if they do this it will ALWAYS and FORVER ETERNALLY linked and compared to The Avengers. Do they really want to fight against that?
To be perfectly honest, I don't want to see it. There's no way they are going to not be compared to The Avengers and if they don't do anywhere near as good, which they won't do, it'll be considered a failure.
I think because they'd have to introduce the characters, almost having to do prequel movies they'd be hard press to garner the interest on a long term basis. The Avengers, again, was unprecedented. We bidder our time because we didn't think it was possible until pretty much when the credits on Captain America rolled.
That said, I'd much rather see a "Worlds Finest" or Superman/Batman movie. They don't have to introduce the characters. They are two characters arguably bigger and more well know than any Marvel character. Both of them have a history of well performing films, they're indeed bankable characters. Not to mention the story lines they can take are endless. And it doesn't mean the movie HAS to be limited to just those two heroes. It almost make sense to open up the universe. That's one thing the Avengers did, but unlike the Avengers which melded 4 franchises into one, it's not even trying to scale itself n that level.
Unfortunately, WB's biggest problem here is that they are still trying to do things the way they always have... and that method just does not work for the type of movie they need to make here. Marvel built its movies up organically... they put just enough in each film to lead into the next one, but left things open so that the next person in line wouldn't feel boxed in. WB is so focused on making these adaptations films first that they're ignoring the overall narrative that tied the Marvel films together.
Actually, that's the big problem, I think. Everything DC has made has been focused on making it a good film first, and everything else is a far distant second. The Nolan Batman films are now so locked into their own little film world that they have to be rebooted just so Batman can work in a JLA film. Green Lantern got so lost in the magic of CGI and all the aliens that it wasted it's opening film on the two of the worst Green Lantern villains. Superman might be a good film, but unless it builds on GL or starts tying some of these other films together it's going to be tough explaining how all these radically different films exist in the same universe.
only slightly related but still kinda cool
Non-existant Justice League CG movie concept art (http://io9.com/5917946/what-if-pixar-made-a-justice-league-movie)
Pixar would probably do a better job than WB.
But, I think the biggest reason that Avengers worked and DC wouldn't is how the characters were originally conceived. The Marvel universe has for the most part been a singular world that all of the characters had to respond to cohesively. For instance, magic works the same way in Fantastic Four as it does does in Dr. Strange. Captain America is the same essential character in his own book that he is in The Avengers.
DC books are basically their own worlds that sometimes come in contact. The rules for Superman is different than the rules for Batman. In one book, magic is just a delusion with a plausible explanation. In another, magic is genuine force to be reckoned with. Batman in his own title is not the Batman of the Justice League of America.
Growing up, I preferred DC over Marvel because each book was unique and gave you more variety, and I preferred Marvel over DC because of the internal consistencies of their books. The result is that both DC and Marvel have a lot potential in making successful movies out of single character/concept, Superman, Ironman, Fantastic Four, and Watchmen, worth watching, but Marvel has the advantage when trying to bring diverse characters together, Avengers and Justice League of America.
Quote from: Tawodi Osdi on June 13, 2012, 05:19:48 PM
Pixar would probably do a better job than WB.
But, I think the biggest reason that Avengers worked and DC wouldn't is how the characters were originally conceived. The Marvel universe has for the most part been a singular world that all of the characters had to respond to cohesively. For instance, magic works the same way in Fantastic Four as it does does in Dr. Strange. Captain America is the same essential character in his own book that he is in The Avengers.
DC books are basically their own worlds that sometimes come in contact. The rules for Superman is different than the rules for Batman. In one book, magic is just a delusion with a plausible explanation. In another, magic is genuine force to be reckoned with. Batman in his own title is not the Batman of the Justice League of America.
That's something you're going to have to back up with evidence - in what DC comic is magic just a delusion? Characters may
believe that, but that doesn't make them right. Is there actually a book where magic characters don't (or can't) exist? Batman has fought magic, Superman has fought magic, Wonder Woman is magic, etc.
My big problem with magic in both DC and Marvel comics are the lack of rules or limits. What can Dr. Strange (or Dr. Fate) or Zatanna do? Maybe it's better to ask what
can't they do. Their limits are only those of authorial fiat; in one situation the solution will be 'get Dr. Strange,' while in another one that can be very similar, he'll be unable to help.
Actually, I think he has a little bit of a point in there... I agree that Batman has dealt with magic too, but we HAVE seen magic dealt with differently in different books (Young Justice even poked fun at it with T.O.Morrow's initial appearance). But that's a minor point regardless... Ever since the start of the Silver Age, Marvel would always cross-polinate their books... Spiderman would have random cameos in other marvel titles, Avengers would fight the X-men, etc. (the theory being that fans would want to know who this other character was, and go pick up his book as well) DC has never really had that... they always established one character's universe at a time, and then would only bring those universes together for either a team book or for a big crossover.
The problem is, that method doesn't work for a movie-going audience... you HAVE to build each of the continuities on top of one another in order to sell them as being from the same universe. Let's be honest, Green Lantern CAN'T exist in the same movie universe as Nolan's Batman, and I kinda doubt it fits in the same world as ANY of the other films.
I admit I don't read a lot of modern comics and haven't read old ones in ages, but I recall unless Batman was specifically teamed up with a magic using hero, like the Demon or the Spectre, Batman's skepticism about magic always proved true. It was only when working in concert with a magical hero did his skepticism prove false.
Quote from: Tomato on June 13, 2012, 10:19:05 PM
Actually, I think he has a little bit of a point in there... I agree that Batman has dealt with magic too, but we HAVE seen magic dealt with differently in different books (Young Justice even poked fun at it with T.O.Morrow's initial appearance). But that's a minor point regardless... Ever since the start of the Silver Age, Marvel would always cross-polinate their books... Spiderman would have random cameos in other marvel titles, Avengers would fight the X-men, etc. (the theory being that fans would want to know who this other character was, and go pick up his book as well) DC has never really had that... they always established one character's universe at a time, and then would only bring those universes together for either a team book or for a big crossover.
The problem is, that method doesn't work for a movie-going audience... you HAVE to build each of the continuities on top of one another in order to sell them as being from the same universe. Let's be honest, Green Lantern CAN'T exist in the same movie universe as Nolan's Batman, and I kinda doubt it fits in the same world as ANY of the other films.
just based off of images from the set, i would say Green lantern COULD exist in the superman universe... though that is yet to be seen so :/
except that if Superman makes no mention at all about the giant stupid looking yellow monster thing (y'know, "Parallax") then it can't exist in the same universe, because that kind of craziness is bound to come up when a second superhero shows up, ESPECIALLY since the main character is a news person.
What?!!!!
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/ben-affleck-talks-direct-justice-league-warner-bros-answer-avengers-report-article-1.1131947
Quote from: JeyNyce on August 09, 2012, 01:23:46 PM
What?!!!!
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/ben-affleck-talks-direct-justice-league-warner-bros-answer-avengers-report-article-1.1131947
Are they frickin' insane???? This why although I actually prefer the DC characterss Marvel will continue to kick DC's arse in live action. At least we have the brilliant animated stuff which can adapt even a story which was pretty bad in the comic and make it enjoyable.
Quote from: steamteck on August 09, 2012, 04:56:54 PM
Quote from: JeyNyce on August 09, 2012, 01:23:46 PM
What?!!!!
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/ben-affleck-talks-direct-justice-league-warner-bros-answer-avengers-report-article-1.1131947
Are they frickin' insane???? This why although I actually prefer the DC characterss Marvel will continue to kick DC's arse in live action. At least we have the brilliant animated stuff which can adapt even a story which was pretty bad in the comic and make it enjoyable.
Actually had a conversation about this last night. I don't think Affleck would be a bad choice to DIRECT as along as he is not cast in the film in anything but a minor or supporting role. People to need to separate their hate of Affleck as an actor (which he really is not all that great) from the fact that he has proven himself to be a competent and pretty good director.
Another story that I have heard is that a Batman reboot to lead into a JLA movie was being aimed for 2014 though I don't that happening before 2015 unless there is more of a script in place (and other factors) than we realize. That said, the film was said to take place in what is essentially "Batman year 2" and not be an origin story.
There are so many Debbie Downers here about DC (particularly their movies) on this forum. Geeze.
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on August 09, 2012, 05:28:34 PM
There are so many Debbie Downers here about DC (particularly their movies) on this forum. Geeze.
This^
Quote from: Midnite on August 13, 2012, 05:03:11 PM
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on August 09, 2012, 05:28:34 PM
There are so many Debbie Downers here about DC (particularly their movies) on this forum. Geeze.
This^
Umm, given WB's track record, can you blame them? They don't seem to be able to put anything coherent together between their various properties. The lack of a central decision making/planning aparatus, a-la Marvel, has really taken a toll on DC's grand movie plans in the last several years, and the movies they have produced haven't exactly filled most fans with great confidence.
You would think that since DC & WB are pretty the same company that they would be able to get their movie right on point, but they can't. Marvel got back the right for some of their heroes and they did their movie justice with minor changes.
The Wachowskis in the Running to Direct Justice League? (http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/172393-the-wachowskis-in-the-running-to-direct-justice-league)
Eh, as long as they're not writing it.
Quote from: Midnite on August 26, 2012, 02:40:10 PM
The Wachowskis in the Running to Direct Justice League? (http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/172393-the-wachowskis-in-the-running-to-direct-justice-league)
Eh, as long as they're not writing it.
Liked!
Warner Bros. Plans Justice League for 2015 (http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/173263-warner-bros-plans-justice-league-for-2015-)
Not sure if its wise to go against Avengers 2. I hope the writing and directing is top notch. :unsure:
Apparently they are planning on going backwards compared to the Marvel movies, start with the team up, then spin off into individual franchises. The DC superheros probably are well enough known to pull it off, assuming they can get a good script and director, which I honestly have precious little confidence of.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on October 19, 2012, 12:47:03 AM
Apparently they are planning on going backwards compared to the Marvel movies, start with the team up, then spin off into individual franchises. The DC superheros probably are well enough known to pull it off, assuming they can get a good script and director, which I honestly have precious little confidence of.
Haha...yeah, at this point that's tantamount to saying 'provided pigs learn to fly.'
Well once in a while, they manage to get someone for a DC movie who knows what he's doing and the film turns out well, like Nolan with Batman. I can only conclude that they only manage that through sheer random luck, given how things turn out the rest of the time.
Marvel, on the other hand, has its act together and has not gotten a dud on any of its films since taking control of them in spite of many different writers and directors involved. Sure, some of the films are better than others, but all of them are at least good, and most of them are excellent.
Let's look at dc's track record since the reboot of the comic movie genre(not necessarily in any order)
Batman Begins- good movie, with some minor flaws. Decent reboot.
Catwoman- UGH
Superman Returns- failed on so many levels I can't even begin to list them all.
The Dark Knight- One of the best batman films, but still had a few minor problems with pacing and the like. Still in the top 10 comic films.
Watchmen- followed the comic almost too closely, so the changes they did make were even more jarring. Commercial failure.
Green Lantern- Decent, but incredibly flawed. No clear direction, urine poor villains, total mess of an adaption.
Dark Knight Rises- Better than Begins, not as good as TDK.
So for every good movie dc has given us, we have a bad one to contend with. And that's not even taking into account the fact that all 3 of the good movies were made by the same people. Not a track record that inspires confidence
I don't know why you guys are complaining! Jonah Hex was the best DC movie I've ever seen!* DC should make their next movie like that. It'd be a definite hit and bury The Avengers! I don't know why it was never mentioned in the lists some of you just threw together.
*Has never seen Jonah Hex, thank the heavens!
I thought of it, but for some reason while I was making the list I couldn't remember for sure if that was dc or marvel, so I just left it off.
Either way, it just reinforces dc's poor track record, but they don't really need Hex to prove they don't know what they're doing.
Quote from: Tomato on October 19, 2012, 02:38:38 AM
Watchmen- followed the comic almost too closely, so the changes they did make were even more jarring. Commercial failure.
I wouldn't say failure there. Disappointment, maybe, but was definitely a fair margin from a box office failure.
Am I the only one who thinks that the Watchmen should be rated as being in the top 5 of Superhero movies?
Quote from: Cyber Burn on October 20, 2012, 12:24:23 AM
Am I the only one who thinks that the Watchmen should be rated as being in the top 5 of Superhero movies?
As I said elsewhere, I actually thought it was a pretty fantastic adaptation, all things considered. However, the story itself is one of which I'm not overly fond. It's brilliant but painful.
My point was, it didn't exactly make any impact outside of the comic fan community. Most non comic nerds I know didn't watch it, or it had so little impact that they don't really remember it. And even the fans weren't thrilled at the time because of the whole "Alan Moore hates it so I hate it on principle too!" thing.
Personally, I thought it was decent, and it was probably the purest adaptation of any comic we've seen outside of animated films. But between the gratuitous violence, and the overt nudity, it's also one I've been reluctant to go buy.
The Watchmen is not a traditional superhero film romp, which is what moviegoers expect to see. It was a pretty good adaptation, from what I hear (I dislike the whole concept and could even force myself to read the book) but exactly the kind of thing unsuitable for a major blockbuster. I think because of the subject material, it doesn't really count as far as the good/bad superhero movie list.
Which still leaves a pretty bad record for DC.
I was also thinking that the reverse formula could be disastrous, now that I ponder it a bit more, or at least a recipe for not repeating Avengers success. Avengers was the killer moneymaker it was not only because it is a fantastic superhero film (which it certainly is) but because it offers something for everyone. People who like Hulk could go see hulk, people who prefer Iron Man could see him, families could bring their kinds, superhero fanboys could bring their non fan girlfriends and so on. Building the franchise on hero at a time and putting them together had the side effect of creating several different groups of fans of the various movies, all of whom wanted to watching the Avengers.
If you start with the team movie first, you risk losing that. Of course, Superman Batman, and Wonder Woman are well enough known that it may still have a chance, but putting it up against Avengers 2 would definitely be a mistake.
Batman best movie series since Star Wars, so. Yknow, that's a thing DC did. But that's always been a Batman away from what they planned to be a DC movie U.
Green Lantern I feel like was their first true attempt to reboot the comic book movie and go to the standards of Marvel's rapidly swelling filmmaking pride. They really couldn't have wasted more money, what a crap, belongs on MST3K. The thing is, I don't think the universe in there is worthless though, and even Ryan Reynolds returning won't ruin a team movie by itself.
They will try to apply Zack Snyder's skills but forced Nolan's hand into the Superman reboot. I mean to me it sounds like a recipe for success since WB is realizing they need to let creatives create in this quality movie age, but Superman's a hard sell to idiots these days who don't like how awesome he is. Another failure and this time with no more Batman movies to summon 5-20 dollars from everyone in the country is going to be bad for business. I don't see a JLA movie working without this being a success. And I expect it to be a success, though you can see how hyped I got over Green Lantern during the trailer and that was like a rough in diamonds that year.
But if they're putting top talent on Superman, why not do the same for Flash and Wonder Woman? I mean WW the character herself needs a complete and total reboot but they could find a group to make her the coolest thing on the screen so even the three fans of the current Wonder Woman would welcome the change.
WB needs to hire the interested people who have at least made one good movie, and back off because their poison touch is avoidable. I'll give the wealthy millionaires who have been working in this industry for decades more of my neck-bearded sage advice after I see Man of Steel and judge how valuable that is based on how tired I am when I go see it in the theater.
Of course the Batman movies were excellent. That was a result of Nolan. DC movies are good when they happen to get directors and writers who can do the characters and know the material, but they seem to hit that randomly on that, rather than having any competence at engineering it.
Okay, I'm going to go against the grain a wee bit here. I think it's a GREAT idea to use a "Justice League" movie as a launching point for non-Batman and non-Superman franchises.
There have been at least three attempts at either a Wonder Woman film or TV series since 2005. Whedon's project, the horrid TV series pilot and a script that was sold that Warner Brothers bought with no real intent of filming. There is barely interest in the Wonder Woman comic so I don't think any stand alone film with her in it is going to sell right now. It's weird but for WW to be one of DC's "big three" she is treated like a fourth stringer sometimes. The only place she has consistently done well and garnered attention is in the JLA cartoon. Her DC direct to DVD animated film helped her some but it was stiill not the seller than the JLA movies were or the Superman and Batman related movies.
And Green Lantern was at best a mediocre project. However, I refuse to blame Ryan Reynolds for the crappy script and bad direction. If you put Reynolds in there with a good script and proper direction for playing Hal Jordan then he will surprise you. I am confident on this. I've seen the guy work on set. I've worked with (indirectly) him on set. He is a very directable actor and generally stays to the script.
The Flash is the only character out of the bunch who might be able to draw an audience in a film. However, with DC/WB's track record with their live action films, it's a big risk. The same goes for Aquaman who, despite Benton's love for him, is barely taken seriously outside of the appearance on Smallville (that is saying something, sadly). Martian Manhunter is a supporting character, period. Cyborg is again barely known to people outside of Smallville and honestly could be a supporting character.
So DC makes one film with a core group of heroes. Batman, Superman, GL, Flash, and Wonder Woman with brief appearances by Martian Manhunter and Cyborg. I am leaving Aquaman out for good reason. There were plans at once point for an Aquaman film with Leonardo DiCaprio producing. However, I don't see that film happening any time soon. However, it is plausible that he might be added in some capacity.
From that core group, Batman and Superman already have franchises. The GL franchise is barely off the ground because of the bad script and directing on the first film. The aim, business wise, would be to launch two more franchises out of it and save the GL franchise.
Of course to do this, it will depend a great deal on the script, the directing, and the casting.
I agree that starting with a Justice League film is a great way to launch numerous potential franchises; I just lack faith in Warner Bros. ability to get a great script, director and cast. Man of Steel has a lot riding on it - both the relaunch of a Superman film franchise, but also demonstrating whether Warner Bros has the ability to make any superheroes work other than Batman.
The problem, Hamrick, is that pulling off a movie with an ensemble cast like the Justice League is hard enough without having to basically build up as many as 6 spin off franchises from that film. You have to cast actors that are perfect not only within the ensemble of the movie, but who have the talent to hold up a solo franchise as well. You have to balance screen time on a razors edge, making sure each character leaves enough of an impression on the audience that they will go see all the character's solo films. You have to introduce characters with VASTLY different origins, power sets, and personalities. And above all, you have to make a movie that is pretty freaking amazing in order to get a potential audience for any of the solo films.
Yes, this idea potentially has merit. If this were the marvel studios films, and we'd only gotten to see Iron Man or Captain America prior to the Avengers movie, I could see audiences wanting to go out and see solo movies with the other Avengers. Characters who weren't as well known by the public, like Thor, Hawkeye, or Black Widow, would then have more relevancy when it came time for their solo films. But this isn't Marvel Studios. It's Warner Brothers. And from what we've seen in the last decade, without Chris Nolan, they can't make a great superhero movie to save their lives.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on October 20, 2012, 02:40:55 AM
Of course the Batman movies were excellent. That was a result of Nolan. DC movies are good when they happen to get directors and writers who can do the characters and know the material, but they seem to hit that randomly on that, rather than having any competence at engineering it.
You know, I'd love to see Nolan make another Batman movie.
Begins was great. It's a shame he never made any more.
Yeah, WB is trying to do this because they've pretty conclusively proven that they lack the will and the organizational ability to do what Marvel has done, however, those same faults likely doom this project before it even begins. I'd love to be proven wrong, but without a competent hand at the helm, and what's more, one that is attached to a head and heart that knows and cares about the characters at stake, even if the initial movie defies the odds and is fantastic, it's likely to fall apart shortly thereafter.
Quote from: BentonGrey on October 22, 2012, 04:48:14 PM
You know, I'd love to see Nolan make another Batman movie. Begins was great. It's a shame he never made any more.
Benton... We've discussed this. TDK is not like Twilight, you can't just ignore it exists until the stupid tweens get tired of it and move on. Dark Knight was actually a great movie, regardless of how you feel about its treatment of characters (though for the record, I LOVED how it treated my fav batman villain, so... >P)
Haha! That's not what I was going for, 'Mato, but that was funny. I was actually implying that neither it nor its sequel were really Batman films. Nolan didn't really want to make Batman films. He wanted to make very specific films, and they just happen to have Batman in them.
Quote from: BentonGrey on October 22, 2012, 06:46:06 PM
Haha! That's not what I was going for, 'Mato, but that was funny. I was actually implying that neither it nor its sequel were really Batman films. Nolan didn't really want to make Batman films. He wanted to make very specific films, and they just happen to have Batman in them.
Your assessment seems spot on to me. Then again, the only one I liked was Batman Begins but I won't start my rant again. All can relax. Nolan's involvement with Superman actually has me really nervous.
There may be a time factor to consider as well. By the time the individual character films have been released and then the JL film is then produced, the public's infactuation with Super Heroes may have gone. These films are riding high at the moment but it's a fad that will come to an end. Vampires were all the thing a while back, vampires on the big screen, vampires on the TV, vampires everywhere but now, apart from the Twilight films, interest has gone. I can only assume that this will hapen with the superhero films as well.
DC/WB may miss the boat....
Quote from: BentonGrey on October 22, 2012, 06:46:06 PM
Haha! That's not what I was going for, 'Mato, but that was funny. I was actually implying that neither it nor its sequel were really Batman films. Nolan didn't really want to make Batman films. He wanted to make very specific films, and they just happen to have Batman in them.
I'm not saying you should like them. I mean, you should, they're the best, but not really the point.
But not being Batman movies doesn't make sense to me, Batman is the main character, the films center around his role in the city. They're named after him.
He doesn't act much differently than many other well-known incarnations. So how is it not a Batman movie? Because the camera followed other characters for too long?
"The way Batman is" isn't set in stone very much and hasn't been since they changed the original detective to the zoinks-y Adam West type. Millionaire by day, Batsuit, gadgets, punching crazy people, etc. It's all there.
Ok, seriously, this is getting silly.
While I don't agree with Benton on this, I actually DO see where he's coming from. Of any adaptation we've seen of Batman, the Nolan films are about as far removed from the original comics as it can be while still maintaining just enough so that you can say "it's technically a batman movie." Entire chunks of the mythology and character of Batman are not only just absent from the Batman films, but just plain can't exist in that world. Hell, well over half his rogues gallery can't even fit in the same world without heavily twisting and manipulating their core characteristics to fit Nolan's world.
Batman is about more then just some rich guy with some cool martial arts training and fancy gadgets. In every single other incarnation of the character, he's a guy who relies on his brain to solve crimes as much as his fancy toys (and that's been true from Adam West to Paul Dini). But in Nolans Batman, name one time he did any detective work or planned tactics or did anything that wasn't just him relying on some tech or some outside help or a cell phone sonar nonsense.
He's also a man driven to help other people (again, this is true in any other version of the character) to the point where he can never give up the role... there's ALWAYS more people to help, and he won't rest until he has done so. But in Nolan's film, Batman quits... not once, but TWICE over the course of the later films.
The reality is, those aspects of Batman and his world were purposely downplayed by Nolan in order to make Batman more of a normal guy in a more realistic world. And that's fine, it worked within the context of the films but I do also see why other fans feel as though taking away those aspects of the character rip out a core part of who Batman is. It's an area where I can see both sides, even if I personally was perfectly fine with Nolan's Batman (in the same way I'm fine with elseworlds type stuff), and I can't fault guys like Benton for seeing things that way.
That said, I DO take issue with people just saying the films are automatically bad because they don't like how batman was portrayed. You can dislike a film for those reasons, but that doesn't mean the film wasn't well written or directed just because you personally don't like how Nolan interpreted the character. It's incredibly narrow-minded to suggest that it's automatically a bad film because you interpret a character differently.
QuoteThat said, I DO take issue with people just saying the films are automatically bad because they don't like how batman was portrayed. You can dislike a film for those reasons, but that doesn't mean the film wasn't well written or directed just because you personally don't like how Nolan interpreted the character. It's incredibly narrow-minded to suggest that it's automatically a bad film because you interpret a character differently.
This is weird because when they do stuff like this in comics people are more forgiving, they take it as a "What If" or an alternate version of the character. Maybe it's because I'm older, but that how I see these super heroes movie now, as an alternate version of the character. Burton had his version, Nolan had his. Both movies were completely different for each other but in my opinion, I enjoyed them very much.
Quote from: kaflinkle_rises on October 24, 2012, 08:52:47 AM
There may be a time factor to consider as well. By the time the individual character films have been released and then the JL film is then produced, the public's infactuation with Super Heroes may have gone. These films are riding high at the moment but it's a fad that will come to an end. Vampires were all the thing a while back, vampires on the big screen, vampires on the TV, vampires everywhere but now, apart from the Twilight films, interest has gone. I can only assume that this will hapen with the superhero films as well.
DC/WB may miss the boat....
This is an aside. Those looking only for Justice League/Nolan Batman rantings, skip over.
Apart from Twilight, interest in vampires has gone? That's hilarious. There are at least 3 different vampire-based TV shows being made right now, probably more, a dozen young adult book series trying to cash in on Twilight's crappy popularity, and vampire movies come and go as regularly as the tides. Mostly awful vampire properties are still everywhere.
Normal thread topic may now continue.
But my point was about trends, not about Vampires. I can only speak about what I see in the UK though.
Watch and discuss:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SR5tcpH9aA0
I think 'Mato explained some of the objections to Nolan's movies being "Batman" movies pretty well. Thanks 'Mato. Do I think that the differences between the Batman mythos and the versions on film invalidate the movies as worthwhile texts themselves? No, of course not. I think it's pretty obvious that both of the latter Nolan films have more than enough flaws on their own to, if not cripple them, certainly hobble them as films and films alone. They're both pretty flawed, replete with plot holes, characters acting irrationally for their established personalities, and the second one suffers horribly from bad editing. Yet, the real problem with these films is not that they aren't Batman movies (and let's face it, they aren't really Batman movies), but that Nolan is all concept, and in this case, his concepts are too sprawling for the big screen. They'd work great as books, TV series, or longer format adaptations, but he's always trying to do too much in too little space.
I actually could have really enjoyed the last movie if it weren't for the supreme sadness I felt at coming so close to a great ending for a beloved character, but having that ending tainted by all that was missing. Despite that, I don't think these films are awful, and I don't hate them, but I certainly can't share in the unadulterated worship everyone showers on them. They're just far too flawed for such high praise.
In the end, Nolan is a talented director who aims too high. That's a better problem to have than many others, but I wish he'd spend a bit more time on the details. I'd also prefer for my favorite characters to have their stories told by people who actually want to tell stories about them. If you think that Batman is too silly to work on film, you're ultimately the wrong guy for the job.
Quote from: JeyNyce on October 26, 2012, 07:03:57 PM
Watch and discuss:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SR5tcpH9aA0
I was watching John Carter the other day and was thinking that Lynn Collins would be perfect for the role, which this lady apparently agrees with. At least in that film, she looks impressively muscular and physically strong, but still attractive, so I think it would be a perfect fit. Don't have an opinion on any other casting.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on October 26, 2012, 09:00:56 PM
Quote from: JeyNyce on October 26, 2012, 07:03:57 PM
Watch and discuss:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SR5tcpH9aA0
I was watching John Carter the other day and was thinking that Lynn Collins would be perfect for the role, which this lady apparently agrees with. At least in that film, she looks impressively muscular and physically strong, but still attractive, so I think it would be a perfect fit. Don't have an opinion on any other casting.
Yeah, I think she'd make a pretty decent Wonder Woman, though I think WW would be better off as someone a bit more...Amazonian.
Wow........this list really illustrates why someone desperately needs to take all control of DC movies out of these people's hands....
http://www.cracked.com/article_19206_5-superhero-movies-you-wont-believe-almost-got-made.html
Be warned, this is not family or work safe.
Has the Villain for Justice League Been Revealed? (http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/173875-has-the-villain-for-justice-league-been-revealed)
It's kind of an obvious choice, but we still don't have a director or writer yet, let alone an actual script that says "_____ is the villain"
Benton, as stupid as those movies are, keep in mind that most of them were being conceptualized prior to the release of X-men 1. Yeah, we've had some stinkers since then too, but we've reached the point with Superhero films (especially now) that there HAS to be substance to the film for it to do well. WB might not be as receptive to that as Marvel has been, but I highly doubt a Jack Black Green Lantern film would make it past the conception stage in today's market.
I'm going to be honest here: If this project does go forward (and I'm not really convinced it will, tbh) I don't think it will be a bad film. WB can't afford for it to be a bad film, and I'm sure they'll pump enough money and talent into it to make it at least a passable team movie. The problem I have with it(as I think it is with most fans) is that it cannot be a great film, and Justice League deserves to be a great film.
Quote from: Tomato on December 04, 2012, 03:57:22 AM
Benton, as stupid as those movies are, keep in mind that most of them were being conceptualized prior to the release of X-men 1. Yeah, we've had some stinkers since then too, but we've reached the point with Superhero films (especially now) that there HAS to be substance to the film for it to do well. WB might not be as receptive to that as Marvel has been, but I highly doubt a Jack Black Green Lantern film would make it past the conception stage in today's market.
Ha, I think you're giving them entirely too much credit, 'Mato. Still, I understand your point. Their collective inability to put together anything cohesive and organized speaks to the fact that the suits running WB still haven't realized the reality of the situation. Yes,
X1 and
Spider-Man 1 were game changers, and WB did partially change their own game in response. However,
Iron Man 1 was also a game changer, while
The Avengers was even more revolutionary. Those are the lessons they don't seem to have learned. Would a Jack Black Green Lantern get off the ground now? Maybe not, but a Ryan Reynolds one did, and while it wasn't nearly as bad as that train wreck sounded, it wasn't nearly as far removed as we might expect. Ha, don't get me wrong, I hope things like this never get through, but these days I have absolutely zero faith in WB's ability to make good decisions, which brings me to:
Quote from: Tomato on December 04, 2012, 03:57:22 AM
I'm going to be honest here: If this project does go forward (and I'm not really convinced it will, tbh) I don't think it will be a bad film. WB can't afford for it to be a bad film, and I'm sure they'll pump enough money and talent into it to make it at least a passable team movie. The problem I have with it(as I think it is with most fans) is that it cannot be a great film, and Justice League deserves to be a great film.
I think that's very well said, though I don't really have faith that it will even be passable. It certainly COULD be. WB has proven that they can hit the bullseye (translated, they've gotten exceptionally lucky) with movies..wait, a movie like
Batman Begins, but it seems like massive projects like this, with so very much ridding on them, can so easily be spoiled by nervous executives desperate to ensure their success. Take a look at Aliens 3, Superman 2, ad infinitum. I very much hope that we'll see a good JLA film, but, and I think this is where you really hit the mark, these characters deserve a GREAT movie, and passable would be terribly disappointing in context.
I know I'm going to once again be accused of being a general pessimist about movies, but I point any naysayers to every post I make about any project of Marvel Studios. Those guys have earned my faith like crazy-go-nuts. WB has consistently punched my faltering hopes in the gut and stolen their lunch money. Remember, this is coming from the guy that created the DCUG. I like these characters just a bit. They're my favorites, so it's even more disappointing when WB continues to fail in such spectacular fashion.
Well see, here's what I mean by "passable" films... when I say passable, I'm talking about movies like Wolverine and Green Lantern. Those two movies are VERY flawed, but when it comes down to whether I'll sit and watch them if they're on tv or when I'm tired of watching avengers for the 500th time... I can actually watch and enjoy them.
Contrast that with bad movies like X3, B&R, and Superman Returns. I can't even sit through X3 in a sitting... I get to somewhere around the "Cyclops dies" scene and I go all EPIC NERD RAGE and shut it off.
I have every faith that WB will make a movie I can sit through. I just don't have any faith that it'll be one I'll really enjoy.
Quote from: Tomato on December 05, 2012, 10:51:08 PM
Well see, here's what I mean by "passable" films... when I say passable, I'm talking about movies like Wolverine and Green Lantern. Those two movies are VERY flawed, but when it comes down to whether I'll sit and watch them if they're on tv or when I'm tired of watching avengers for the 500th time... I can actually watch and enjoy them.
Contrast that with bad movies like X3, B&R, and Superman Returns. I can't even sit through X3 in a sitting... I get to somewhere around the "Cyclops dies" scene and I go all EPIC NERD RAGE and shut it off.
I have every faith that WB will make a movie I can sit through. I just don't have any faith that it'll be one I'll really enjoy.
Wow, I'm very surprised at that, 'Mato. I could watch X3 much more easily than Green Lantern. I can't believe you'd lump X3 in the same category with Batman and Robin...ha, you must REALLY hate it.
Killing off Cyclops in such a bs fashion, the nonsense with regards to jean grey, trying to lump together the phoenix saga and cure storylines (some of the most complex aspects of xmen lore) on top of the resurgence of the brotherhood AND introducing so many new characters just to kill or cure them, the rogue thing... it's a total and complete mess of a movie and a mockery of what was once my favorite comic series ever.
Compare that to Green Lantern, which was a bit on the silly side and had a lame set of villains, but showed promise for better sequels due to how they handled Sinestro, Kilowag, and to an extent Hal (Ryan would not have been my first choice, but he didn't do a BAD job in that role.)
So, some new rumors have been circulating... that the JL was going to only include 5 members, that JGL is definitely NOT gonna be batman, and one in particular stating that WB has scrapped the current Justice League script entirely.
Quote from: Tomato on February 09, 2013, 01:25:10 AM
So, some new rumors have been circulating... that the JL was going to only include 5 members, that JGL is definitely NOT gonna be batman, and one in particular stating that WB has scrapped the current Justice League script entirely.
I actually could see where a first JLA movie should only include 5-7 members. The only reason The Avengers got more into their was that all the characters had appeared in other movies first except Maria Hill. (Hawkeye had a cameo in Thor, remember?)
JGL is doing Sin City 2. He was asked directly about is involvement with a JLA film and even a cameo in Man of Steel. He shot it down point blank and said that he had just committed to doing Sin City 2 and that the interviewer if there was a question about a rumor involving him and a film to ask him.
I've heard the same about the JLA script being scrapped. It would not surprise me given that the person wrote just penned "Gangster Squad" which bombed more or less at the box office.
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on February 11, 2013, 03:21:13 AM
I've heard the same about the JLA script being scrapped. It would not surprise me given that the person wrote just penned "Gangster Squad" which bombed more or less at the box office.
Quote from: Panther_Gunn on June 06, 2012, 06:40:16 PM
On the other hand, Beall has only written 5 episodes of the show Castle (I'm not familiar with it), and "edited" 32 of them (including his 5, I'm assuming), as well as the not-quite-yet released Gangster Squad. Is he really *that* good of a writer to be given responsibility for what should be 3 big-budget movies, when his only other screenplay hasn't even hit the theaters yet?
If that particular rumor pans out, I'll take the credit for calling this one, as I'm so rarely right about these things long-range.
Quote from: Panther_Gunn on February 11, 2013, 03:44:04 PM
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on February 11, 2013, 03:21:13 AM
I've heard the same about the JLA script being scrapped. It would not surprise me given that the person wrote just penned "Gangster Squad" which bombed more or less at the box office.
Quote from: Panther_Gunn on June 06, 2012, 06:40:16 PM
On the other hand, Beall has only written 5 episodes of the show Castle (I'm not familiar with it), and "edited" 32 of them (including his 5, I'm assuming), as well as the not-quite-yet released Gangster Squad. Is he really *that* good of a writer to be given responsibility for what should be 3 big-budget movies, when his only other screenplay hasn't even hit the theaters yet?
If that particular rumor pans out, I'll take the credit for calling this one, as I'm so rarely right about these things long-range.
Apparently, he wasn't all that good after all. It's like I said to someone a long time ago. "Not everyone who writes good TV can write a good film nor can everyone who writes a good film write good TV."
Apparently, he wasn't all that good after all. It's like I said to someone a long time ago. "Not everyone who writes good TV can write a good film nor can everyone who writes a good film write good TV."
[/quote]
Unless your Joss Whedon...
Quote from: docdelorean88 on February 14, 2013, 02:17:08 AM
Unless your Joss Whedon...
Mk, three issues with that statement. One, Joss Whedon HAS done film before (Serenity) and was moderately familiar with it BEFORE jumping into Avengers. Two, there is a VAST difference between Castle (which, as much as I enjoy it, is essentially just a basic crime drama) and Firefly (which was a space western involving a ton of special effects, a large cast of characters and dozens of intersecting plotlines). Third, Joss Whedon wasn't just writer no. 7 on those shows... he's been the head writer/director for at least half a dozen tv shows at this point. Beall's one legitimate film script outside of JL just tanked at the box office.
That being said, Hamrick's point wasn't that tv writers couldn't be movie writers, it's that not everyone is flexible enough to do BOTH.
Quote from: Tomato on February 14, 2013, 05:42:37 AM
Quote from: docdelorean88 on February 14, 2013, 02:17:08 AM
Unless your Joss Whedon...
That being said, Hamrick's point wasn't that tv writers couldn't be movie writers, it's that not everyone is flexible enough to do BOTH.
Exactly. Plus, there are differences format wise in writing for TV vs. Film.
1) The average 60 minute episode of a TV show is actually only 42-45 minutes long. The other 15-18 minutes are commercial time. The average 30 minute TV show is only 22 minutes long. The average film is between 100-120 minutes long. In recent years, it's not uncommon to see 'bigger films' (like The Avengers or the Harry Potter movies) to run closer to the 150 minute mark. Star Wars was a rarity back in the day for having a 120 minute run time. This is one reason (though not the only reason) why some films get 'director cuts' or 'extended editions' after being released.
2) That 42-45 minutes of TV show time generally has a 5 part break down.
Spoiler
- The first few minutes are the intro of the show and often pre-show's opening credits.
- The three basic 'acts' of the show. Note, these three acts don't always mean that even part of the show between the commercial breaks. Sometimes a show will have an extra commercial break in it.
- The coda/epilogue of the show. Often ties back into the intro, first bit after the intro or serves to foreshadow future events. Will almost always have some sort of character development involved.
Feature films break down into three acts but often those three acts break down to 8 segments. The only exception I can think of here are films that include the words "Written by Uwe Boll" or "Directed by Uwe Boll"
3) The amount of time allowed for character development
usually differs between TV and Film. In the long run, TV will have more time for character development if the show is successful. A successful TV show season could run anywhere between 6-13 hours for a UK TV season (from what I have seen) to 13-26 hours for a US series. Compare that to film which successful or not will only have 1.5 to 2.5 hours.
That is to say nothing about Whedon. Whedon has a style of writing that lends itself to either genre. And as Tomato pointed out, Whedon was the HEAD WRITER on the show. He was essentially was the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_runner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_runner) show runner (ala what Steven Moffat is for Doctor Who) for the Buffy series as well as being the head writer. (For those who do not know, the show runner on a TV show outranks the director.) Whedon's style tends to lean toward being character driven over plot driven. No one is saying that the plots are not important but that the focus is on the character driving the story as oppose to the plot driving it.
*Shrug* The rumored canning of the script is not particularly surprising or interesting to me. As for rumors of a five character JLA, that isn't necessarily a terrible idea for some narrative purposes, especially if the missing two were Batman and Superman. The World's Finest team of Batman and Superman could easily end up overwhelming all the other characters because of their powers/personalities/audience familiarity. However, the trouble with that is audiences are going to wonder why the heck they should go see a Justice League film without Superman or Batman. That's fairly irrelevant, though, as the suits would never hear of not having their cash cows in on the show. The real problem here isn't that the cast is too big, the stories too difficult to translate, or the characters not familiar enough to audiences. The problem is the same problem that this project has faced since the beginning, namely, WB has no clear idea what they're doing. At the risk of beating the dead horse, we've seen this work, and work beautifully, and we've seen it with Marvel. Could this be done without the vision and unity of Marvel's approach? Probably, but not as well, and not as accurately.
In the end I imagine we'll get exactly what all of this predicts, some wounded, half-hearted, mess of a movie like pretty much every other DC flick in the last ten years.
Quote from: BentonGrey on February 14, 2013, 08:29:22 PM
*Shrug* The rumored canning of the script is not particularly surprising or interesting to me. As for rumors of a five character JLA, that isn't necessarily a terrible idea for some narrative purposes, especially if the missing two were Batman and Superman. The World's Finest team of Batman and Superman could easily end up overwhelming all the other characters because of their powers/personalities/audience familiarity. However, the trouble with that is audiences are going to wonder why the heck they should go see a Justice League film without Superman or Batman. That's fairly irrelevant, though, as the suits would never hear of not having their cash cows in on the show. The real problem here isn't that the cast is too big, the stories too difficult to translate, or the characters not familiar enough to audiences. The problem is the same problem that this project has faced since the beginning, namely, WB has no clear idea what they're doing. At the risk of beating the dead horse, we've seen this work, and work beautifully, and we've seen it with Marvel. Could this be done without the vision and unity of Marvel's approach? Probably, but not as well, and not as accurately.
In the end I imagine we'll get exactly what all of this predicts, some wounded, half-hearted, mess of a movie like pretty much every other DC flick in the last ten years.
Er... no, see, the five member team was gonna be...
You know what, never mind. It would break your poor, Aquaman loving heart to tell you what they were planning.
Quote from: Tomato on February 14, 2013, 11:57:43 PM
Er... no, see, the five member team was gonna be...
You know what, never mind. It would break your poor, Aquaman loving heart to tell you what they were planning.
Haha, no worries 'Mato, I have no illusions about the intelligence or fidelity of the folks involved. I'm sure they weren't going to do that, and I'm also relatively sure that they don't have the imagination to grasp how awesome Aquaman is.