Time Warner Creating "DC Entertainment" Unit (Finally!)
Jason Todd
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-warner10-2009sep10,0,1779787.story
Warner Bros. hopes to cure a case of superhero envy.
After years of lagging rival Marvel Entertainment in adapting comic-
book properties for the big screen and other media, the Burbank studio
unveiled a major restructuring of its DC Comics unit Wednesday that
will bring its operations under tighter control.
The move is an effort by Warner Bros. and corporate parent Time Warner
Inc. to implement a new strategy for DC Comics, which will face
stiffer competition from a steroid-charged Marvel as a result of Walt
Disney Co.'s deal last week to acquire it for $4 billion.
Diane Nelson, a top brand manager who has overseen Warner's lucrative
"Harry Potter" franchise since 1999, has been put in charge of the
newly named DC Entertainment with a mandate to better exploit its
properties across the studio's movie, television, interactive, digital
and consumer products businesses.
"This is the structural iteration of what we have been trying to
accomplish for a long time," said Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer.
"We think it is important for Warner Bros. to exercise appropriate
control over these properties, because they are highly valued assets
of our company."
For the four decades that Warner has owned DC, the publisher of such
classic comics as "Superman," "Batman" and "Wonder Woman," the New
York publisher has operated largely independently of the studio.
As superhero movies have become one of the most profitable genres in
Hollywood, tensions between DC and Warner have contributed to the
studio's inability to match the success of Marvel, which has scored on
the big screen with such A-list characters as Spider-Man and lesser-
known ones such as Iron Man and X-Men.
"It almost appears as if Warner Bros. were just buying DC now and
deciding what to do with it," said Gareb Shamus, chief executive of
Wizard Entertainment, which publishes a magazine following the comic-
book industry. "This move is going to be great for Warner because it
firmly puts the characters in control of the people who make movies
and television."
Numerous DC properties, including "Wonder Woman," "Justice League" and
"The Flash," have languished in development at Warner Bros. for years,
with little coordination among the studio's producers and executives
and the comic-book publisher. The unit's top development executive had
reported directly to DC Publisher Paul Levitz rather than to anyone at
Warner.
In one notable example, the CW Network, which Warner Bros. co-owns,
last year announced plans to produce a show based on Batman's
sidekick, Robin. Several months later it was killed after Motion
Picture Group President Jeff Robinov and "Dark Knight" director
Christopher Nolan, who hadn't been consulted, expressed their
disapproval, according to people familiar with the situation.
Under the new structure, Nelson will report to Robinov. Levitz is
moving to a consulting role.
"DC has been a publishing company, but I think it has the potential to
do more," Nelson said. "I come into this not as a comic-book fan per
se but someone who knows Warner Bros. and how to bring value to the DC
properties."
The new DC chief has been Warner's point person for everything "Harry
Potter" over the last 10 years. The franchise, adapted from the books
by J.K. Rowling, has been the most successful in the studio's history,
generating more than $5.4 billion in worldwide box office and billions
more from DVDs, video games and other media.
But the move is not without risk. Comic-book fans are sure to be wary
of a corporate executive taking control of their beloved characters
and will be watching closely to see whom Nelson selects to replace
Levitz and run DC's publishing arm.
Warner has had a mixed history with the DC properties it has adapted
for other media.
Its biggest success, 2008's "The Dark Knight," generated more than $1
billion in worldwide ticket sales and was a top DVD seller. The CW
Network's "Smallville," based on the early life of Superman, is
entering its ninth season. "Batman: Arkham Asylum," a recent video
game co-published by Warner Bros. Interactive, has sold nearly 2
million units in less than a month, a major hit.
However, the studio's "Watchmen" movie released in March was a box-
office disappointment, 2006's costly "Superman Returns" wasn't
successful enough to merit another sequel, and 2004's "Catwoman" film
was a major flop.
The next movie up is "Jonah Hex," a supernatural western that has just
completed production. Currently filming is the military-commando tale
"The Losers." Warner's next major superhero movie will be "The Green
Lantern," starring Ryan Reynolds, which begins shooting March 15 for
release in the spring of 2011. A third Nolan-directed Batman movie is
in development.
A large part of Nelson's strategy will be not only to exploit the
highest-profile characters but also to identify lesser-known ones with
potential to be used in movies, TV, games and other media, as Marvel
has successfully done with second-tier properties like "Iron Man."
"Before, DC as a publishing entity in New York was a repository of
assets accessed by the motion picture group, TV, games and consumer
products," said Warner President Alan Horn. With the reorganization,
he said, "there will be much more cross-pollination."
**********
Last week, I said DC clearly needed one strong hand in handling
scripts and production. I'm not sure Nelson is actually that person,
(if she's still going to have to report to Robinov, that still leaves
a level of beauracracy) , but at least this is a move in the right
direction. The Marvel/Disney merger *definitely* lit a fire under
someone's ass.
Jason "Wonder Twins - The Movie???" Todd
David E. Powell
> Warner shakes up DC Comics to compete with Marvel
>
>
Snip Awesome
> Last week, I said DC clearly needed one strong hand in handling
> scripts and production. I'm not sure Nelson is actually that person,
> (if she's still going to have to report to Robinov, that still leaves
> a level of beauracracy) , but at least this is a move in the right
> direction. The Marvel/Disney merger *definitely* lit a fire under
> someone's ass.
>
> Jason "Wonder Twins - The Movie???" Todd
Team up with Roland Emmerich and have a "Day After Tomorrow" type deal
when the Ice Wonder Twin goes nuts.
Gr�e
9d4e-d89...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> After years of lagging rival Marvel Entertainment in adapting comic-
> book properties for the big screen and other media,
This, I don't agree with. Recently, maybe, but it wasn't until Spider-Man
made it big, that Marvel began getting movie deals for its characters.
Before that, DC had a Batman TV series, a Wonder-Woman TV series, Lois
and Clark, Superboy, Smallville, The Flash TV series, Batman movies,
Superman Movies, Swamp Thing movies and TV series, Super Friends
cartoons, Batman cartoons, Superman cartoons, and all kinds of other
stuff. They didn't branch out too far from the core characters, though.
Marvel had a flop Punisher movie, an direct-to-home-video Captain America
movie, an unreleasable Fantastic Four movie, and Spider-Man and his
amazing friends cartoon, with a couple of bad TV movies, like Spider-Man,
Captain America, and Nick Fury. Their lone success was The Incredible
Hulk TV series, which gave us a few good TV movies after the series run,
which featured Daredevil and Thor. To be honset, they are still hit and
miss, even now. Spider-Man 3 sucked, both of the Fantastic Four movies
were iffy, X-Men 3 was only so-so, one decent Punisher movie followed by
a pretty bad one, a really cheesy Ghost Rider flick, a downright horrible
Daredevil and its horrible sidekick Electra, and a hard-to-watch Hulk
movie...it wasn't until Spider-Man 2 that they started getting their act
together, X Men 2 was awesome, a really good Hulk reboot, and an
excellant Iron Man really pulled things together. Marvel doing their own
movies was a step in the right direction.
Still, for all their successes The Dark Knight kicked all of their asses.
Superman Returns sucked, though.
> Marvel, which has scored on the big screen with such A-list characters
> as Spider-Man and lesser- known ones such as Iron Man and X-Men.
I take it that the writer of this is just talking out of his ass. Lesser
known to whom by whom? I guess he may be comparing them to Spider-Man,
but that doesn't mean they are "lesser known" exactly.
> Levitz is moving to a consulting role.
In other words, he's getting canned.
> But the move is not without risk. Comic-book fans are sure to be wary
> of a corporate executive taking control of their beloved characters
> and will be watching closely to see whom Nelson selects to replace
> Levitz and run DC's publishing arm.
Meh. How bad can they do?
rwa2play (Lost mode on)
> Jason Todd <janklowic...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8a022d26-2379-467d-
> 9d4e-d89aee56f...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
Ummm did you forgot the craptacularness that were "Constantine" and
"Catwoman?"
Granted, Marvel's movies have been six of miss, half-dozen of hit.
The hit financially that Marvel took with their releases are far
smaller than the one WB took with "Catwoman," "Constantine" and
especially with SR.
Jason Todd
> Jason Todd <janklowic...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8a022d26-2379-467d-
> 9d4e-d89aee56f...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > book properties for the big screen and other media,
>
> This, I don't agree with. Recently, maybe, but it wasn't until Spider-Man
> made it big, that Marvel began getting movie deals for its characters.
X-Men came first though, paving the way for Spidey.
>
> Before that, DC had a Batman TV series,
2 seasons in the 60s, and they STILL can't get it out on DVD
a Wonder-Woman TV series
in the 70s,
, Lois
> and Clark, Superboy, Smallville,
All variations on the Superman mythos, from teh 80s, 90s and 00s
The Flash TV series,
1 season in 1990
Batman movies,
The one big consistent movie success
> Superman Movies,
4 of them, ranging from brilliant to godawful
Swamp Thing movies
and TV series,
TV show had a cult following, but otherwise...
Super Friends
> cartoons, Batman cartoons, Superman cartoons, and all kinds of other
> stuff. They didn't branch out too far from the core characters, though.
Think about what you just wrote: most of what you cite revolves, in
one fashion or another around
TWO characters, Supes and Bats. Now obviously they're two of the most
famous fictional characters in the history of anything. Also there's
very little output from that list that's come out in the last 10
years. (Aside from the exemplary 'toons) But considering how many
characters, heroes and groups DC has, it's almost embarassing that
they haven't done more with them.
Take the Justice League: There should have been a movie way, way, by
now, wouldn't you agree?
> Marvel had a flop Punisher movie, an direct-to-home-video Captain America
> movie, an unreleasable Fantastic Four movie, and Spider-Man and his
> amazing friends cartoon, with a couple of bad TV movies, like Spider-Man,
> Captain America, and Nick Fury. Their lone success was The Incredible
> Hulk TV series, which gave us a few good TV movies after the series run,
> which featured Daredevil and Thor. To be honset, they are still hit and
> miss, even now. Spider-Man 3 sucked, both of the Fantastic Four movies
> were iffy, X-Men 3 was only so-so, one decent Punisher movie followed by
> a pretty bad one, a really cheesy Ghost Rider flick, a downright horrible
> Daredevil and its horrible sidekick Electra, and a hard-to-watch Hulk
> movie...it wasn't until Spider-Man 2 that they started getting their act
> together, X Men 2 was awesome, a really good Hulk reboot, and an
> excellant Iron Man really pulled things together. Marvel doing their own
> movies was a step in the right direction.
> Still, for all their successes The Dark Knight kicked all of their asses.
I'll leave the qualitative discussions for another thread. Look at the
economics. Book Marvel's last 10 years against DC's last 10 years (at
the box office) and it's not even a contest. And make no mistake about
it, in terms of $$$ , prime-time or syndication TV or the box office
is what counts in the entertainment industry. Minus Batman from the
equation what the hell has DC really done in the last twenty years in
those arenas?
> Superman Returns sucked, though.
>
> > Marvel, which has scored on the big screen with such A-list characters
> > as Spider-Man and lesser- known ones such as Iron Man and X-Men.
>
> I take it that the writer of this is just talking out of his ass. Lesser
> known to whom by whom? I guess he may be comparing them to Spider-Man,
> but that doesn't mean they are "lesser known" exactly.
C'mon brah. Let's be honest. A hit comic sells like, what, 100,000
copies? The only comic-book heroes who were well-known to the mass
public prior to 1999 were: Supes, Bats, WW, Aquaman, Spider-Man and
the Hulk.
The vast majority of people who went to see Iron Man, Blade, The X-Men
and The Fantastic Four were seeing those characters for the very first
time. They didn't respond to them as comic book characters, they
responded to them as film characters like the Terminator or the
Predator.
Even now, comic sales are still essentially flat even when a character
has a hot movie out. Wolverine and Iron Man's books are still so-so.
> > Levitz is moving to a consulting role.
>
> In other words, he's getting canned.
Sh'yeah.
> > But the move is not without risk. Comic-book fans are sure to be wary
> > of a corporate executive taking control of their beloved characters
> > and will be watching closely to see whom Nelson selects to replace
> > Levitz and run DC's publishing arm.
>
> Meh. How bad can they do?
Exactly.
Back to one of my points, since this is movies we're talking about,
not comics, they need to make REAL MOVIES. I'm totally over "Oh, they
didn't get this or that detail right" Fuck it. The masses don't care.
Just make good movies using an appreciable interpretation of the
character. Keep the damn action going. Superman Returns, Catwoman,
Fantastic Four 2 and Spider-Man 3 should be prime examples of how NOT
to make a movie.
Jason "Swamp Thing..now that takes me back. Dick Durock was THE
man..." Todd
Syvyn11
"Jason Todd" <janklo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8a022d26-2379-467d...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Wished more comic people were in the DCE leadership.
And if it means Dan DiDio gets his 'future endavors', all the better.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Jason Todd <janklo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Warner shakes up DC Comics to compete with Marvel
>
>http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-warner10-2009sep10,0,1779787.story
>
>Warner Bros. hopes to cure a case of superhero envy.
>
>After years of lagging rival Marvel Entertainment in adapting comic-
>book properties for the big screen and other media, the Burbank studio
>unveiled a major restructuring of its DC Comics unit Wednesday that
>will bring its operations under tighter control.
>
>The move is an effort by Warner Bros. and corporate parent Time Warner
>Inc. to implement a new strategy for DC Comics, which will face
>stiffer competition from a steroid-charged Marvel as a result of Walt
>Disney Co.'s deal last week to acquire it for $4 billion.
>
But it's not just the DC unit that needs help. Consider that the
characters *most* associated with the "Warner" name, The Looney
Tunes crew, are being ill-served under the current system as well.
Comic book characters are read by thousands, these characters were
seen by millions.. The same goes for the Hanna Barbera characters.
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Gr�e
5697ca...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> Exactly.
>
> Back to one of my points, since this is movies we're talking about,
> not comics, they need to make REAL MOVIES. I'm totally over "Oh, they
> didn't get this or that detail right" Fuck it. The masses don't care.
> Just make good movies using an appreciable interpretation of the
> character. Keep the damn action going. Superman Returns, Catwoman,
> Fantastic Four 2 and Spider-Man 3 should be prime examples of how NOT
> to make a movie.
You know, that's actually the truth. Batman 89 was a huge sucess, despite
having his costume be all black, the Joker being the killer of his parents,
the Joker being a gangster before his accidental transformation, and a lot
of other stuff, but it was a good movie. Although I like the movie a lot,
Watchmen kinda proved that sticking too close to the source material will
make a movie that only the fans of the source material will appreciate.
Gr�e
5697ca...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> 2 seasons in the 60s, and they STILL can't get it out on DVD
Too many people want a piece of the pie. The show ran on ABC and was
produced by Fox, based on characers from DC comics, a Time-Warner company.
Add in all of the dead celebrities whose heirs and estates would want
royalties from sales of the series on DVD, and I'm pretty sure we'll never
see it released on DVD in our lifetime.
Tim Turnip
<janklo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Take the Justice League: There should have been a movie way, way, by
>now, wouldn't you agree?
I would not, actually. I don't feel that either a Justice League or
Avengers movie will really work. Mark my words (or not).
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I remember watching one episode and there was a cameo of a guy in a bar
whom I'm pretty sure was Paul Lynde, but he wasn't in the credits -- that
kind of stuff would be a nightmare to sort out..
YKW (ad hoc)
ABC doesn't have a say; their interests in the show terminated when they
canceled it. And, unless they somehow managed to appear without getting
an AFTRA card, no one who acted on the show has any say in how the shows
are distributed, let alone the ability to make any distribution-crippling
demands; that stuff is all in the union contract (save to the extent that
an actor also has a production credit, 'course).
Fox is the sole hold-up in the matter -- unsurprisingly, since, y'know,
it made the series =and= had to pay Kinney/NPP a license fee to do so.
Soon as someone at TW figures out that the '66 property was not somehow
underhandedly stolen by Fox and treats the studio like the (more than)
full partner it was and is, we'll see that release.
--
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
|| E-mail: ykw2006 ||"The mystery of government is not how Washington||
|| -at-gmail-dot-com ||works but how to make it stop." -- P.J. O'Rourke||
|| ----------- || ------------------------------------ ||
||Replace "-at-" with|| Keeping Usenet Trouble-Free ||
|| "@" to respond. || Since 1998 ||
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
"It's not that I want to punish your success. [...]I think
when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
-- The One, 14 Oct 08
YKW (ad hoc)
@mid.individual.net:
> But it's not just the DC unit that needs help. Consider that the
> characters *most* associated with the "Warner" name, The Looney
> Tunes crew, are being ill-served under the current system as well.
> Comic book characters are read by thousands, these characters were
> seen by millions.. The same goes for the Hanna Barbera characters.
How are they ill-served? They are the focus of two cable channels (one in
about half of all homes, the other on nearly every cable, satellite and
IPTV provider in the country). They are currently the subjects of
exhaustive DVD release plans (both projected and realized). They have
been licensed for an enormous range of toys, games, clothing and
household products. Wrt the Looney Tunes characters, some truly horrible
big-budget films have been built around them in the last decade or so.
The LT&MM and HB properties are being managed just fine.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
YKW (ad hoc) <FluffyM...@foxnews.com> wrote:
>t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in news:7gt835F2pbjg6U1
>@mid.individual.net:
>
>> But it's not just the DC unit that needs help. Consider that the
>> characters *most* associated with the "Warner" name, The Looney
>> Tunes crew, are being ill-served under the current system as well.
>> Comic book characters are read by thousands, these characters were
>> seen by millions.. The same goes for the Hanna Barbera characters.
>
>How are they ill-served? They are the focus of two cable channels (one in
>about half of all homes, the other on nearly every cable, satellite and
>IPTV provider in the country). They are currently the subjects of
>exhaustive DVD release plans (both projected and realized). They have
>been licensed for an enormous range of toys, games, clothing and
>household products. Wrt the Looney Tunes characters, some truly horrible
>big-budget films have been built around them in the last decade or so.
>
>The LT&MM and HB properties are being managed just fine.
I assume you mean Cartoon Network and Boomerang? The first has been
dropping classic cartoons for years and I've never known anyone who actually
has the second. Scooby Doo has been fairly well (if IMHO undeservedly)
served, the rest not so much.
And truly horible movies are not good management..
grinningdemon
They could only work if they slowly build up to it the way Marvel is
currently approaching an Avengers movie by laying the groundwork in
Iron Man, Hulk, etc.
The problem with these teams is the characters are all too different
with very different origins...it's not like the X-Men where you can
just explain the mutant idea and be done with it...it's too much to
service in a single movie and do justice to it.
And, even with the simplified mutant concept, the X-Men movies were
still all about a single character anyway (care to guess which
one?)...we've yet to see an actual X-Men team movie...and I would HATE
to see a JLA movie that was all about Superman and/or Batman...or an
Avengers movie that was all about Captain America.
Jason Todd
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:30:19 -0700 (PDT), Jason Todd
>
> >Take the Justice League: There should have been a movie way, way, by
> >now, wouldn't you agree?
>
> I would not, actually. I don't feel that either a Justice League or
> Avengers movie will really work. Mark my words (or not).
A JLA movie would. Remember, "Super Friends" (gag at that name!) was
known by millions. Everybody knows the core characters -- Superman,
Batman, Wonder Woman and Aquaman*. You'd have to introduce other
characters piece by piece in movies or TV (as grinningdemon mentions
they're doing with Avengers) -- Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter,
Hawkman, Flash, Arrow, Canary, Zatanna. But it could be done. If I was
in charge, secondary characters would be introduced in primary
characters' fims. Aka, GL meets Martian Manhunter in space, Batman
teams up with Arrow and Canary, Supes with Flash, WW with Zatanna. And
then, you have a film bringing them all together.
Jason "JLA Antarctica - now THERE'S a tough sell!"Todd
*I'm torn over inclusion of Aquaman in any JLA film. On the one hand,
dude is well-known, but he's a joke to the general populace. (see:
Entourage, Family Guy). On the other hand though, if he's presented
in badass mode like in Alex Ross' Justice, and the cornier aspects of
his powers are played down (the whole commands-all-sea-creatures-
thing) than you've got something to work with. Personally, I'd rather
they keep orange-shirt, short-hair Aquaman, but truth be told, long-
haired, bearded, and spear-hand Aquaman would probably work better on
film.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ifqnAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Russ+Manning%22&lr=&as_brr=0&rview=1&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2
> Warner shakes up DC Comics to compete with Marvel
>
http://books.google.com/books?id=ifqnAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Russ+Manning%22&lr=&as_brr=0&rview=1&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2
http://books.google.com/books?id=ifqnAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Russ+Manning%22&lr=&as_brr=0&rview=1&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2
http://books.google.com/books?id=ifqnAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Russ+Manning%22&lr=&as_brr=0&rview=1&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2
> In article <Xns9C82B7EE6D2111a9y8a0b1r9i6...@69.16.185.247>,
http://books.google.com/books?id=ifqnAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Russ+Manning%22&lr=&as_brr=0&rview=1&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2
> Jason Todd <janklowic...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:b84f1205-05e0-4cbe-ad80-
> 5697ca6a7...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ifqnAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Russ+Manning%22&lr=&as_brr=0&rview=1&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2
> Jason Todd <janklowic...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:b84f1205-05e0-4cbe-ad80-
> 5697ca6a7...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ifqnAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Russ+Manning%22&lr=&as_brr=0&rview=1&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2
> In article <Xns9C82B3B6F8C2Daa...@69.16.185.250>, Grüe <a...@a.com> wrote:
> >Jason Todd <janklowic...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:b84f1205-05e0-4cbe-ad80-
> >5697ca6a7...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ifqnAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Russ+Manning%22&lr=&as_brr=0&rview=1&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2
> "Grüe" <a...@a.com> wrote innews:Xns9C82B3B...@69.16.185.250:> >news:b84f1205-05e0-4cbe-ad80-
> > 5697ca6a7...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
grinningdemon
I prefer long-haired, spear-handed Aquaman myself...but I don't think
he is as well known as you think he is...the general public may
recognize the name (as they may recognize the name Green Lantern) but
they won't know much about the character beyond that...Superman and
Batman are the only ones that are really well known outside of
comics...while Wonder Woman would be easy for anyone to recognize,
non-comics fans wouldn't know much about her either (the TV show was a
LONG time ago).
Most, if not all, of the characters would need to be introduced in
their own movies first...and these should all be done with a future
JLA movie in mind.
Tim Turnip
<janklo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 10, 7:19�pm, Tim Turnip <timtur...@notarealaddress.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:30:19 -0700 (PDT), Jason Todd
>>
>> <janklowic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Take the Justice League: There should have been a movie way, way, by
>> >now, wouldn't you agree?
>>
>> I would not, actually. �I don't feel that either a Justice League or
>> Avengers movie will really work. �Mark my words (or not).
>
>A JLA movie would. Remember, "Super Friends" (gag at that name!) was
>known by millions.
Name-recognition does not equal quality.
> Everybody knows the core characters -- Superman,
>Batman, Wonder Woman and Aquaman*. You'd have to introduce other
>characters piece by piece in movies or TV (as grinningdemon mentions
>they're doing with Avengers) -- Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter,
>Hawkman, Flash, Arrow, Canary, Zatanna. But it could be done.
I saw his post -- but I don't think it matters whether the
chararacters are brought together gradually in other projects, or if
they all appear in the movie for the first time. I just don't see a
traditional super-hero team working as a modern motion picture. It
worked for the first couple of X-Men movies but that's the X-Men, they
are not a traditional team in the mold of the JLA or Avengers.
And mind you, it may well sell a lot of tickets based on heightened
anticipation -- but I'm arguing whether it would work creatively,
which is a different question.
Maybe someone will come up with a fresh approach that will prove me
wrong. But so far I am skeptical.
Duggy
> A JLA movie would. Remember, "Super Friends" (gag at that name!) was
> known by millions. Everybody knows the core characters -- Superman,
> Batman, Wonder Woman and Aquaman*. You'd have to introduce other
> characters piece by piece in movies or TV (as grinningdemon mentions
> they're doing with Avengers) -- Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter,
> Hawkman, Flash, Arrow, Canary, Zatanna.
Make it a Thanagarian invasion of Earth... that way you can have GL,
Hawkman & J'Onn's origins built into the plot.
I'd use the "current" (at time of making) Batman, Superman & Wonder
Woman from their own films... but have them captured as a prelude to
invasion (and have Abin Sur cause the crash of the ship that captures
him.)
Throw in The Flash's origin and you've got a full film. Introduce the
secondary characters, as needed, in later films.
> But it could be done. If I was
> in charge, secondary characters would be introduced in primary
> characters' fims. Aka, GL meets Martian Manhunter in space, Batman
> teams up with Arrow and Canary, Supes with Flash, WW with Zatanna. And
> then, you have a film bringing them all together.
And you've got 3 films that probably wouldn't work. The idea seems
forced.
> Jason "JLA Antarctica - now THERE'S a tough sell!"Todd
Justice League American Antartica?
> *I'm torn over inclusion of Aquaman in any JLA film. On the one hand,
> dude is well-known, but he's a joke to the general populace. (see:
> Entourage, Family Guy). On the other hand though, if he's presented
> in badass mode like in Alex Ross' Justice, and the cornier aspects of
> his powers are played down (the whole commands-all-sea-creatures-
> thing) than you've got something to work with. Personally, I'd rather
> they keep orange-shirt, short-hair Aquaman, but truth be told, long-
> haired, bearded, and spear-hand Aquaman would probably work better on
> film.
I think the real problem with Aquaman is finding a way to use him
without making his role in the film forced.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> I saw his post -- but I don't think it matters whether the
> chararacters are brought together gradually in other projects, or if
> they all appear in the movie for the first time. I just don't see a
> traditional super-hero team working as a modern motion picture. It
> worked for the first couple of X-Men movies but that's the X-Men, they
> are not a traditional team in the mold of the JLA or Avengers.
X-Men work as they banded together for mutual "protection"... you're
right about The Avengers or JLA... which is why I think...
1. An invasion of Earth - it's big enough to bring all the heroes
together without seeming forced.
2. Making basing the team around the characters outside the big three.
> And mind you, it may well sell a lot of tickets based on heightened
> anticipation -- but I'm arguing whether it would work creatively,
> which is a different question.
Very true...
> Maybe someone will come up with a fresh approach that will prove me
> wrong. But so far I am skeptical.
Fair enough.
===
= DUG.
===
Jason Todd
> On Sep 11, 10:49 pm, Jason Todd <janklowic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A JLA movie would. Remember, "Super Friends" (gag at that name!) was
> > known by millions. Everybody knows the core characters -- Superman,
> > Batman, Wonder Woman and Aquaman*. You'd have to introduce other
> > characters piece by piece in movies or TV (as grinningdemon mentions
> > they're doing with Avengers) -- Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter,
> > Hawkman, Flash, Arrow, Canary, Zatanna.
>
> Make it a Thanagarian invasion of Earth... that way you can have GL,
> Hawkman & J'Onn's origins built into the plot.
Wow, that's a lot for one film.
>
> I'd use the "current" (at time of making) Batman, Superman & Wonder
> Woman from their own films... but have them captured as a prelude to
> invasion (and have Abin Sur cause the crash of the ship that captures
> him.)
>
> Throw in The Flash's origin and you've got a full film. Introduce the
> secondary characters, as needed, in later films.
Yeesh.
The way you're speaking of, we'd really need a whole TV or cable mini-
series to really do justice to the concept.
I don't think everybody's origin needs to be expounded upon. People
we're able to handle the characters without much introduction in Star
Wars, The Matrix, LOTR, etc. So it's not like you can't just plop
characters in and worry about the rest later.
> > But it could be done. If I was
> > in charge, secondary characters would be introduced in primary
> > characters' fims. Aka, GL meets Martian Manhunter in space, Batman
> > teams up with Arrow and Canary, Supes with Flash, WW with Zatanna. And
> > then, you have a film bringing them all together.
>
> And you've got 3 films that probably wouldn't work. The idea seems
> forced.
Well that's your opinion. But how do you define "forced"??
> > Jason "JLA Antarctica - now THERE'S a tough sell!"Todd
>
> Justice League American Antartica?
It's one from the Giffen/DeMatteis days. Long story.
> > *I'm torn over inclusion of Aquaman in any JLA film. On the one hand,
> > dude is well-known, but he's a joke to the general populace. (see:
> > Entourage, Family Guy). On the other hand though, if he's presented
> > in badass mode like in Alex Ross' Justice, and the cornier aspects of
> > his powers are played down (the whole commands-all-sea-creatures-
> > thing) than you've got something to work with. Personally, I'd rather
> > they keep orange-shirt, short-hair Aquaman, but truth be told, long-
> > haired, bearded, and spear-hand Aquaman would probably work better on
> > film.
>
> I think the real problem with Aquaman is finding a way to use him
> without making his role in the film forced.
Again, you're talking about a pre-existing concept. How is it
"forced".
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===
grinningdemon
<janklo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I think the real problem with Aquaman is finding a way to use him
>> without making his role in the film forced.
>
>Again, you're talking about a pre-existing concept. How is it
>"forced".
Aquaman has traditionally been a tough fit in the JLA...given that
he's not much use out of water, it's hard to make him work as an
ongoing part of the team...that said, a movie would be a one-shot deal
so that problem wouldn't necessarily apply.
But I still say it's too much to cover in one movie...too many unique
characters to do justice to all the characters...any attempt to do
this all in one movie will innevitably lead to certain characters
essentially reduced to cameo appearances...and this should be a team
of equals.
Eminence
<grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:51:21 -0700 (PDT), Jason Todd
><janklo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> I think the real problem with Aquaman is finding a way to use him
>>> without making his role in the film forced.
>>
>>Again, you're talking about a pre-existing concept. How is it
>>"forced".
>
>Aquaman has traditionally been a tough fit in the JLA...given that
>he's not much use out of water, it's hard to make him work as an
>ongoing part of the team...that said, a movie would be a one-shot deal
>so that problem wouldn't necessarily apply.
Given that so many people *know* about Aquaman's water weakness, you
can't even get around it by retconning it away (as a psychological
dependency rather than a physiological one) or by having him wear a
hydration suit because you'd be accused of "cheating"... making
Aquaman's "lameness" almost unavoidably de facto.
>But I still say it's too much to cover in one movie...too many unique
>characters to do justice to all the characters...any attempt to do
>this all in one movie will innevitably lead to certain characters
>essentially reduced to cameo appearances...and this should be a team
>of equals.
The advantage of the X-Men is that they need only introduce a single
concept -- mutation -- and that covers *everybody*. No need for
specific origins (you'll note they don't even address *why* Cyclops
needs to wear a visor). For other teams, like the JLA and the
Avengers, the majority of the audience* is sitting there asking,
"Who's that guy? What are his powers? How did he get them?" over and
over and over again. That's a big disadvantage right out of the gate,
and even if you try to condense those origins into teensy bits of
dialogue, there's always somebody (half the time it's the guy writing
the review for the paper or website) who misses that critical info :-(
*Because we should all agree by now that fanboys alone can't buy
enough tickets to turn a profit, so the movie has to be accessible to
a much wider audience.
On top of that, unless you approach a JLA film from a SuperFriends POV
("teamwork is good, kids, and while you're at it, eat your
vegetables!"), you need an absolutely kickass villain, one who poses a
credible threat, to even make the movie worthwhile. The upside is that
all those lame villains from the team's history can be ignored. The
downside is you have to justify to the largely ignorant masses why a
team of Superman and Green Lantern even needs anybody else, and you
have to have the script to back that up, without delving into
convuluted DCU history. No easy task.
And while we're agreeing, let's also acknowledge that, while every
character is alledgedly somebody's favorite, and every fanboy seems to
have a pet dream about so-and-so getting his or her own movie, it's
unlikely that we're going to see solo films for the Atom, Black
Canary, Elongated Man, or Red Tornado. They're either out, or they're
cameo players. The foreground almost certainly has to be dominated by
something like Morrison's pantheon of big guns. Even if we stick to
the Big Seven, the movie's bursting at the seams.
Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned
grinningdemon
Agreed...but it still annoys me that, even with the simple origin
advantage they had going into X-Men, the movies still all focus on
Wolverine and, aside from a little bit for Rogue, there is virtually
no spotlight or character development for any of the other X-Men
through all 3 films.
>
>*Because we should all agree by now that fanboys alone can't buy
>enough tickets to turn a profit, so the movie has to be accessible to
>a much wider audience.
>
>On top of that, unless you approach a JLA film from a SuperFriends POV
>("teamwork is good, kids, and while you're at it, eat your
>vegetables!"), you need an absolutely kickass villain, one who poses a
>credible threat, to even make the movie worthwhile. The upside is that
>all those lame villains from the team's history can be ignored. The
>downside is you have to justify to the largely ignorant masses why a
>team of Superman and Green Lantern even needs anybody else, and you
>have to have the script to back that up, without delving into
>convuluted DCU history. No easy task.
>
>And while we're agreeing, let's also acknowledge that, while every
>character is alledgedly somebody's favorite, and every fanboy seems to
>have a pet dream about so-and-so getting his or her own movie, it's
>unlikely that we're going to see solo films for the Atom, Black
>Canary, Elongated Man, or Red Tornado. They're either out, or they're
>cameo players. The foreground almost certainly has to be dominated by
>something like Morrison's pantheon of big guns. Even if we stick to
>the Big Seven, the movie's bursting at the seams.
Right...I just don't see how it could be done well without
establishing all or most of the characters in their own movies
first...it's a concept that is probably best left to animated projects
where so much more material can be produced and it can be done much
cheaper.
Duggy
> > Make it a Thanagarian invasion of Earth... that way you can have GL,
> > Hawkman & J'Onn's origins built into the plot.
> Wow, that's a lot for one film.
Not really. A Thanagarian Invasion (HM's origin), a brief battle at
Mars (JJ's origin) and the GL origin listed blow.
Not a lot at all.
> > Throw in The Flash's origin and you've got a full film. Introduce the
> > secondary characters, as needed, in later films.
> Yeesh.
> The way you're speaking of, we'd really need a whole TV or cable mini-
> series to really do justice to the concept.
Not really, no.
> I don't think everybody's origin needs to be expounded upon. People
> we're able to handle the characters without much introduction in Star
> Wars, The Matrix, LOTR, etc. So it's not like you can't just plop
> characters in and worry about the rest later.
Luke had a 40min intro. Neo about the same - and the entire film was
Neo's secret origin. They had to create a new trilogy for Vader's
origin.
> > And you've got 3 films that probably wouldn't work. The idea seems
> > forced.
> Well that's your opinion. But how do you define "forced"??
Instead of writing the film they want that have to shoe horn in three
team-up films.
> > > Jason "JLA Antarctica - now THERE'S a tough sell!"Todd
> > Justice League American Antartica?
> It's one from the Giffen/DeMatteis days. Long story.
I thought that was Justice League of Antarctica not tice League
American Antartica...
> > I think the real problem with Aquaman is finding a way to use him
> > without making his role in the film forced.
> Again, you're talking about a pre-existing concept. How is it
> "forced".
Aquaman can be pretty useless unless the story calls for him to be
used. Writing a story just so he can be used would make it seem
Duggy
> But I still say it's too much to cover in one movie...too many unique
> characters to do justice to all the characters...any attempt to do
> this all in one movie will innevitably lead to certain characters
> essentially reduced to cameo appearances...and this should be a team
> of equals.
Just like everytime a Star Trek Next Gen film came out certain actors
would complain that they did nothing again.
===
= dug.
===
grinningdemon
Big difference...those characters were developed on the TV show
first...the films were just a continuation...if you're just telling
one more ongoing adventure for the group then it's ok if certain
characters only get minor roles in that particular story...there have
been or will be more stories to spotlight those characters...that
would not be the case with a JLA movie...it would have to introduce
all the characters to the viewers as though it were the first
time...furthermore, the Star Trek franchise is a bit like the X-Men in
that all you really have to do there is establish the basic underlying
concept (be it mutants or the Federation) and you're good to
go...that's all the explanation you really need to have for most of
the characters...you can't do that with the JLA.
Duggy
> >Just like everytime a Star Trek Next Gen film came out certain actors
> >would complain that they did nothing again.
Ummm... I agreed with you.
> those characters were developed on the TV show
> first...the films were just a continuation...if you're just telling
> one more ongoing adventure for the group then it's ok if certain
> characters only get minor roles in that particular story...
Well, the actors disagree... especially when the same actors/
characters get overlooked in every film.
All the new gen films were about Picard (fair enough) with a major
subplot for Data in at least the last 3.
Riker always had is own little subplot going usually with Geordi as
his sidekick. Worf had to be written in bizarrely because of contract
reasons but was just muscle. Troi had a bit of a role in First
Contact. And Crusher... was in all the films.
> there have been
There have been, but that doesn't mean them being in the film at all
is a waste. Leonard Nimoy refused to appear in Generations because he
felt there was no point his character being there.
> or will be more stories to spotlight those characters...
As above, there was a formula to those films, one which leaves the
same characters left out every time.
Much the same way that Storm had a bit of a role in the middle of X-
Men 2 but did little else in the rest.
> that would not be the case with a JLA movie...
So more like X-Men.
> it would have to introduce
> all the characters to the viewers as though it were the first
> time...furthermore, the Star Trek franchise is a bit like the X-Men in
> that all you really have to do there is establish the basic underlying
> concept (be it mutants or the Federation) and you're good to
> go...that's all the explanation you really need to have for most of
> the characters...you can't do that with the JLA.
Agreed.
Which is why I pointed out that a big cast (like JLA or Star Trek)
leaves certain characters/actors underused.
My idea, above, has the Big Three appear but be captured and thus out
of most of the film leaving 4 characters to carry the film and have
origins and stuff.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Sep 16, 1:36�pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >Just like everytime a Star Trek Next Gen film came out certain actors
>> >would complain that they did nothing again.
>> Big difference...
>
>Ummm... I agreed with you.
Sorry...I'm not used to that from you.
>
>> those characters were developed on the TV show
>> first...the films were just a continuation...if you're just telling
>> one more ongoing adventure for the group then it's ok if certain
>> characters only get minor roles in that particular story...
>
>Well, the actors disagree... especially when the same actors/
>characters get overlooked in every film.
>
>All the new gen films were about Picard (fair enough) with a major
>subplot for Data in at least the last 3.
>Riker always had is own little subplot going usually with Geordi as
>his sidekick. Worf had to be written in bizarrely because of contract
>reasons but was just muscle. Troi had a bit of a role in First
>Contact. And Crusher... was in all the films.
I'm not saying they weren't underused in the films...but there were
other stories spotlighting those characters from the long-running TV
show...that wouldn't be the case with JLA.
>
>> there have been
>
>There have been, but that doesn't mean them being in the film at all
>is a waste. Leonard Nimoy refused to appear in Generations because he
>felt there was no point his character being there.
>
>> or will be more stories to spotlight those characters...
>
>As above, there was a formula to those films, one which leaves the
>same characters left out every time.
>
>Much the same way that Storm had a bit of a role in the middle of X-
>Men 2 but did little else in the rest.
>
>> that would not be the case with a JLA movie...
>
>So more like X-Men.
>
>> it would have to introduce
>> all the characters to the viewers as though it were the first
>> time...furthermore, the Star Trek franchise is a bit like the X-Men in
>> that all you really have to do there is establish the basic underlying
>> concept (be it mutants or the Federation) and you're good to
>> go...that's all the explanation you really need to have for most of
>> the characters...you can't do that with the JLA.
>
>Agreed.
>
>Which is why I pointed out that a big cast (like JLA or Star Trek)
>leaves certain characters/actors underused.
Which is fine if you're talking about a TV series or the continuation
of one...but not if you're talking about a one-shot movie with no
guarantee of sequels.
>
>My idea, above, has the Big Three appear but be captured and thus out
>of most of the film leaving 4 characters to carry the film and have
>origins and stuff.
And I don't appreciate that idea...even 4 unique origins in one movie
is tough to pull off and leave any room for a plot beyond that...and,
even though I wouldn't want the big three to take over the movie, they
deserve a significant role...and, since they are "the big three," they
would almost certainly get that.
I still just think it's too much for one movie to cover with any kind
of quality...I'll be happy to see someone prove me wrong but I still
think the best approach is to build up to a JLA movie with a series of
individual films introducing and spotlighting the major
players...Batman and Superman are already covered, but Wonder Woman,
GL, and Flash should get their own movies...then round out the cast by
introducing a couple more in the actual JLA movie (probably Martian
Manhunter and Aquaman...or maybe the Hawks) as part of the plot...and
let that be the line-up for the first film...more of the lower tier
characters can then be brought in for sequels once the core cast has
been well established...it's the best way to do justice to all the
characters.
John Duncan Yoyo
<tednolan>) wrote:
We get Boomerang on DirectV. It is actually pretty good with no or at
least very limited commercials but they show way more Hanna Barbera
and MGM/Tom & Jerry than Warner Brothers. The Warner Brothers is
seems to be limited to DC Comics based stuff. I can't find classic
Warner Brothers on either CN or BOOM.
The Wacky Races and Perils of Penelope Pitstop are on in the morning
before school. Still amazingly watchable for a 9 year old and
nostalgic corn for me.
-
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Local residents upset with the current weather pattern are encouraged to walk outside
their homes and shake their fists at the sky while exclaiming, "I am displeased!"
Duggy
> >Ummm... I agreed with you.
> Sorry...I'm not used to that from you.
That's OK, I'm not used to it from me.
> >All the new gen films were about Picard (fair enough) with a major
> >subplot for Data in at least the last 3.
> >Riker always had is own little subplot going usually with Geordi as
> >his sidekick. Worf had to be written in bizarrely because of contract
> >reasons but was just muscle. Troi had a bit of a role in First
> >Contact. And Crusher... was in all the films.
> I'm not saying they weren't underused in the films...but there were
> other stories spotlighting those characters from the long-running TV
> show...that wouldn't be the case with JLA.
Agreed. I've always said that this was the case with things like Trek
or X-Men. They need a series so that there can be a Troi episode.
My point, I guess, with that long-wided analysis was that the same
characters were underused each time (in fact the same characters were
*used* each time.
You'd think that when writing one of the films that that'd look at
some of the characters left behind previously and give them a major
plot.
If you're making a JLA film you're making a single film, but you're
hoping to do well enough for a sequel/sequels. Given that my first
plot was alien-invasion (GL/JOnn/Hawkman) focused, I'd probably base a
sequel around Aquaman so he was introduced in a film he'd be the focus
of then underuse him in later sequels.
> >Which is why I pointed out that a big cast (like JLA or Star Trek)
> >leaves certain characters/actors underused.
> Which is fine if you're talking about a TV series or the continuation
> of one...but not if you're talking about a one-shot movie with no
> guarantee of sequels.
True. But there is no possible way that they'd talk about making JLA
without the possibility of sequels.
Making a TV show there's no guarantee past the pilot.
I'd make JLA to stand alone. To underplay the Big Three and focus on
the 4 "introduced" characters. The next film would introduce say
Aquaman, maybe one or two more and pick some of the previous 7 to
share focus. If I got one.
> And I don't appreciate that idea...even 4 unique origins in one movie
> is tough to pull off and leave any room for a plot beyond that...
Which is why only one of those origins is tacked on. Three of them
are part of the plot.
> even though I wouldn't want the big three to take over the movie, they
> deserve a significant role...and, since they are "the big three," they
> would almost certainly get that.
I think, conceptually, in a "why form the JLA" sort of way the Big
Three being captured early in the film and freed for the big action
stuff at the end works.
The big problem is audience (popular & critical) reaction which would
probably "feel ripped off" by it.
> I still just think it's too much for one movie to cover with any kind
> of quality...I'll be happy to see someone prove me wrong
So what do you think of a Thanagarian invasion that wipes out Mars
leaving a sole survivor, captures Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman &
Abin Sur to eliminate resistence, accidently causing Sur's death in a
crash leaving him to pick a successor... An invasion which is finally
defeated by one of their own turning rebel and ending up staying on
Earth?
With Barry's origin thrown in at the begining?
> but I still think the best approach is to build up to a JLA movie with a series of
> individual films introducing and spotlighting the major
> players...Batman and Superman are already covered,
Batman is... except this is easy Marvel style where you do the
"prequel" for the team-up rather than the other way around... I mean,
is the current Batman really JLA material? Will Christian do a JLA
film? Will he do it and not blow the budget? Will the makers of the
Batman film not get upset about someone else playing with their toys?
Superman isn't... I think Returns hasn't made a solid mark. They'll
need to do a new Superman film, either Returns 2, or Superman Begins
before we have anything usable.
> but Wonder Woman,
Wondy needs one either way. And they need a writer who like Wondy not
one who is famous for writing powerful female characters and so signs
on.
However, beyond having films Batman, Superman and to a degree Wonder
Woman don't need them to "work" just added to a film.
> GL, and Flash should get their own movies...
They should, but spinning off from a JLA film might make be a better
way to give them exposure so the films have a bigger chance.
We're looking at Warner making at least 3 films, possibly 4 here,
before you do the JLA film. That's realistically 3 to 5 years and a
massive commitment to the Superhero genre (which Warner has
experienced boom-and-busts in before.)
> then round out the cast by
> introducing a couple more in the actual JLA movie (probably Martian
> Manhunter and Aquaman...or maybe the Hawks)
The Hawks are at least a two-for plot wise... and I guess have a built
in romance sub-plot.
> as part of the plot...and
> let that be the line-up for the first film...
Well, my idea doesn't have Aquaman that early, has a plot with built
in origins for GL, J'Onn & the Hawks. It forces The Flash (although,
I would do a Flash film first given the chance).
I think we're pretty close...
> more of the lower tier
> characters can then be brought in for sequels once the core cast has
> been well established...it's the best way to do justice to all the
> characters.
Certainly agree with that.
As I say, for a sequel I'd do an Aquaman film and build the cast
around that.
Green Arrow I'd keep out of it until Batman became unavailable...
Black Canary I'd consider for the sequel, prob with her gaining the
cry as part of the story... but I'm not sure I'd want to use her
without Green Arrow.
Any of the four I focused on in the first film (Flash, GL, J'Onn,
Hawkman) who got their own spin-off film I'd certainly underplay or
perhaps write-out... Not completely ignore, and certainly use where
they worked for the story but I wouldn't build the film around them.
Perhaps just use Hawkgirl from the Hawks to keep the character
diversity (hero type & sex) while reducing numbers.
I'd certainly increase the role of at least one of the big three
especially after downplaying them in the first film.
Atom I'd keep as in reserve for a replacement for Flash, GL or J'Onn
if needed.
Someone listed Zatanna, but I don't think magic would work in a JLA
film. YMMV, but as a kid I hated magic in comics & superhero films
and I feel that the mainstream audience is the same.
Elongated Man, I feel the same about. To the mainstream audience IMHO
he's gonna seem silly just because of his powers, so I'd keep him out
(once again, this is a childhood prejudice which I may be wrongly
applying to everyone)
Now, given your perfect world of a Wondy, Flash & GL "prequel" would
you do a between films "Black Canary/Green Arrow" film or such to set
up new characters?
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>I'd make JLA to stand alone. To underplay the Big Three and focus on
>the 4 "introduced" characters. The next film would introduce say
>Aquaman, maybe one or two more and pick some of the previous 7 to
>share focus. If I got one.
Uderplaying the big three as you suggest in unrealistic...they are the
most popular characters and, as such, any film version would
undoubtedly give them more significant roles...furthermore, when it
comes to film, it's really only the big two...Wonder Woman isn't
really that much better known than Flash or GL at this point...it's
been a long time since that TV show, after all.
>> And I don't appreciate that idea...even 4 unique origins in one movie
>> is tough to pull off and leave any room for a plot beyond that...
>
>Which is why only one of those origins is tacked on. Three of them
>are part of the plot.
The thing is, aside from the Hawks, your plot doesn't really cover
those other origins...they just spin out of it...it doesn't really
simplify or make it any easier to take the time out of the story to
tell the origins...think about it...you're in the middle of a
Thanagarian invasion and you really want to take screen time away from
that to cover Abin Sur's final moments and establish Hal Jordan...same
goes for Flash or Martian Manhunter...I just think it's too much.
>
>> even though I wouldn't want the big three to take over the movie, they
>> deserve a significant role...and, since they are "the big three," they
>> would almost certainly get that.
>
>I think, conceptually, in a "why form the JLA" sort of way the Big
>Three being captured early in the film and freed for the big action
>stuff at the end works.
But, without establishing the other characters in their own movies,
there will be a fair amount of fans who would go to the movie
specifically for the big three and keeping them sidelined for most of
the movie is only going to disappoint...it's much better to watch the
team come together over the course of the movie and actually see them
develop as a team (kind of like the beginning of the Justice League
cartoon) rather than just seeing the big guns pop up at the end for
the final fight.
>The big problem is audience (popular & critical) reaction which would
>probably "feel ripped off" by it.
Exactly.
>> I still just think it's too much for one movie to cover with any kind
>> of quality...I'll be happy to see someone prove me wrong
>
>So what do you think of a Thanagarian invasion that wipes out Mars
>leaving a sole survivor, captures Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman &
>Abin Sur to eliminate resistence, accidently causing Sur's death in a
>crash leaving him to pick a successor... An invasion which is finally
>defeated by one of their own turning rebel and ending up staying on
>Earth?
Again, I think it's too much for one movie...but, if there were
already GL and Flash movies establishing those characters and getting
their origins out of the way, your plot idea isn't bad and
streamlining it by only needing to introduce the Hawks and the
Manhunter leaves more time for the plot itself and to actually see the
team come together and do their thing...I just think it works much
better.
>
>With Barry's origin thrown in at the begining?
>
>> but I still think the best approach is to build up to a JLA movie with a series of
>> individual films introducing and spotlighting the major
>> players...Batman and Superman are already covered,
>
>Batman is... except this is easy Marvel style where you do the
>"prequel" for the team-up rather than the other way around... I mean,
>is the current Batman really JLA material? Will Christian do a JLA
>film? Will he do it and not blow the budget? Will the makers of the
>Batman film not get upset about someone else playing with their toys?
That is the question...but, at most, I'd say he'll do one or two more
Batman movies anyway...so, if they put the JLA off for a while to make
room for the other films, by that time, they could recast the role if
necessary...it's not like people aren't familar enough with Batman to
get past it...hell, just look at how many actors have already played
the character in the last 20 years.
>
>Superman isn't... I think Returns hasn't made a solid mark. They'll
>need to do a new Superman film, either Returns 2, or Superman Begins
>before we have anything usable.
I agree that a good Superman movie is always welcome...and
preferred...but not necessary to introduce the character at this
point...he's well enough known to let it ride if need be.
>
>> but Wonder Woman,
>
>Wondy needs one either way. And they need a writer who like Wondy not
>one who is famous for writing powerful female characters and so signs
>on.
Agreed.
>However, beyond having films Batman, Superman and to a degree Wonder
>Woman don't need them to "work" just added to a film.
Ditto.
>> GL, and Flash should get their own movies...
>
>They should, but spinning off from a JLA film might make be a better
>way to give them exposure so the films have a bigger chance.
I disagree...if anything, watering down their origins and
characterizations to fit into a JLA movie could hurt their chances of
subsequent success with solo films.
>
>We're looking at Warner making at least 3 films, possibly 4 here,
>before you do the JLA film. That's realistically 3 to 5 years and a
>massive commitment to the Superhero genre (which Warner has
>experienced boom-and-busts in before.)
That is essentially what Marvel is doing and it seems to be working
out so far...super-hero movies (and comic movies, in general) have
been really successful of late...both because technology has
progressed enough to do them well and because Hollywood has
essentially run out of new ideas...and the audience is definitely
there...I actually think even the non-comics fans would appreciate
seeing something like this develop over the course of several movies.
>> then round out the cast by
>> introducing a couple more in the actual JLA movie (probably Martian
>> Manhunter and Aquaman...or maybe the Hawks)
>
>The Hawks are at least a two-for plot wise... and I guess have a built
>in romance sub-plot.
I actually think introducing Hawkman alone might work best...then have
Hawkgirl come along in a sequel (or in a Hawkman film)...possibly even
allowing them to blend the blend some of the Golden Age elements into
the story instead of just making them alien cops.
Alternatively, you could introduce them both in the first film but
only have Hawkman side with earth (at least at first).
>> as part of the plot...and
>> let that be the line-up for the first film...
>
>Well, my idea doesn't have Aquaman that early, has a plot with built
>in origins for GL, J'Onn & the Hawks. It forces The Flash (although,
>I would do a Flash film first given the chance).
>
>I think we're pretty close...
>
>> more of the lower tier
>> characters can then be brought in for sequels once the core cast has
>> been well established...it's the best way to do justice to all the
>> characters.
>
>Certainly agree with that.
>
>As I say, for a sequel I'd do an Aquaman film and build the cast
>around that.
Possibly...maybe have Aquaman lose his thrown and Atlantis, under the
usurper, attacks the surface...not exactly original I know but it
could still make a good movie.
>Green Arrow I'd keep out of it until Batman became unavailable...
>Black Canary I'd consider for the sequel, prob with her gaining the
>cry as part of the story... but I'm not sure I'd want to use her
>without Green Arrow.
Black Canary would be a good choice to add in the sequel...I actually
prefer her WITHOUT GA...I never really liked them together anyway but,
moreover, I think BC really came into her own after they split...she's
mre interesting without him...and, in forcing them back together, DC
has made the character weaker, in my opinion.
Furthermore, having seen what Smallville has done with Green Arrow, I
think it would be really hard to put him into the movie without having
him come off as a Batman knock-off...that is, after all, how he
started in the comics...and a movie wouldn't have time to really
establish the differences.
>Any of the four I focused on in the first film (Flash, GL, J'Onn,
>Hawkman) who got their own spin-off film I'd certainly underplay or
>perhaps write-out... Not completely ignore, and certainly use where
>they worked for the story but I wouldn't build the film around them.
>Perhaps just use Hawkgirl from the Hawks to keep the character
>diversity (hero type & sex) while reducing numbers.
I really can't see a Martian Manhunter movie working out...he's a
great character but he's never really worked on his own...and, as much
as I would personally love to see it, I kind of doubt the Hawks could
carry their own film either.
>I'd certainly increase the role of at least one of the big three
>especially after downplaying them in the first film.
>Atom I'd keep as in reserve for a replacement for Flash, GL or J'Onn
>if needed.
Ray Palmer certainly wouldn't be a bad choice to introduce in a later
film...possibly even introduce him as a scientist in the first film
(basically a cameo appearances) and then have him become the Atom down
the line.
>Someone listed Zatanna, but I don't think magic would work in a JLA
>film. YMMV, but as a kid I hated magic in comics & superhero films
>and I feel that the mainstream audience is the same.
I love Zatanna...but I'm not sure the character would fit in a JLA
film...I did like her in Smallville though...I also liked her in the
Batman Animated Series...I wish they had used her more.
>Elongated Man, I feel the same about. To the mainstream audience IMHO
>he's gonna seem silly just because of his powers, so I'd keep him out
>(once again, this is a childhood prejudice which I may be wrongly
>applying to everyone)
Certain characters just wouldn't translate well to live action...I'm
not even sure about Martian Manhunter.
>Now, given your perfect world of a Wondy, Flash & GL "prequel" would
>you do a between films "Black Canary/Green Arrow" film or such to set
>up new characters?
Probably not...I think the "prequels" would be reserved for the top
tier characters (Batman, Superman, WW, Flash, GL, and maybe even
Aquaman with the right approach)...after that, you can introduce a
couple more characters in each subsequent film and then possibly spin
them off on their own afterwards...for instance, if a Hawkman film
were made, by chance, I think it would have a better chance of success
as a spin-off rather than introducing the character on his own first.
Jason Todd
> >Batman is... except this is easy Marvel style where you do the
> >"prequel" for the team-up rather than the other way around... I mean,
> >is the current Batman really JLA material? Will Christian do a JLA
> >film? Will he do it and not blow the budget? Will the makers of the
> >Batman film not get upset about someone else playing with their toys?
And that's probably something that held up the proposed Batman and
Superman film. Batman is *the* man in both the comics and the movies.
So they want to be careful about how he's handled.
Batman in a JLA could work -- he could have an adversarial
relationship with everyone else, (i.e. be the curmudgeon he is in teh
comics) and that would provide some dramatic tension in the flick,
removing it from "Super Friends" territory.
And then at the end of the film he could either leave the team (and
then get dragged back in next movie)
Bale has already said he doesn't want to be in a JLA movie, so fuck
him. There have been four movie Batmen in the last 20 years. What's
one more. Get an unknown. In fact, get unknowns for all the roles.
They should be good actors, don't get me wrong, but they don't have to
be stars. (It didn't seem to affect the Star Trek reboot) In fact,
that's a huge beef I have with most comics movies -- miscasting. Keanu
Reeves as John Constantine? Jennifer Garner as Elektra? These are
casting decisions made by agents and studio chiefs out of business
decisions. Nothing to do fitting the part.
>
> I agree that a good Superman movie is always welcome...and
> preferred...but not necessary to introduce the character at this
> point...he's well enough known to let it ride if need be.
>
Yes.
>
> >> but Wonder Woman,
>
> >Wondy needs one either way. And they need a writer who like Wondy not
> >one who is famous for writing powerful female characters and so signs
> >on.
>
> Agreed.
My two cents on a Wonder Woman movie - laugh if you will; I believe
they should continue right from the TV series. Diana Prince, aka
Wonder Woman, is a government super-agent. She fought in WWII, and has
worked for the U.S. ever since. She married Steve Trevor after the War
as well. He aged, she didn't. He dies at like 70 at the film's
beginning and so we've got a woman now widowed and afraid to love
again and crap like that. (And yes, that's a lift out of Gruenwald's
Squadron Supreme. DC should be able to steal as many SS plot lines as
they want!)
They should be careful with villains. Dr Psycho, Giganta, Cheetah...I
can't see any one of them as carrying a movie on their own. There can
either be a team-up or make up somebody new. I would go balls-out and
introduce Apokolips to the movies. Darkseid, Orion, Mr Miracle etc
etc. Since a lot of films with female protagonists haven't done great
lately (with Whiteout being the latest bomb) you've gotta throw
everything at the screen -- eye-popping visuals, cool vehicles, big
fights, etc. This has to be a cool film that becomes a must-see for
the kids.
> >However, beyond having films Batman, Superman and to a degree Wonder
> >Woman don't need them to "work" just added to a film.
>
> Ditto.
>
> >> GL, and Flash should get their own movies...
>
> >They should, but spinning off from a JLA film might make be a better
> >way to give them exposure so the films have a bigger chance.
>
> I disagree...if anything, watering down their origins and
> characterizations to fit into a JLA movie could hurt their chances of
> subsequent success with solo films.
>
I
True dat.
>
> >I'd certainly increase the role of at least one of the big three
> >especially after downplaying them in the first film.
> >Atom I'd keep as in reserve for a replacement for Flash, GL or J'Onn
> >if needed.
>
> Ray Palmer certainly wouldn't be a bad choice to introduce in a later
> film...possibly even introduce him as a scientist in the first film
> (basically a cameo appearances) and then have him become the Atom down
> the line.
>
> >Someone listed Zatanna, but I don't think magic would work in a JLA
> >film. YMMV, but as a kid I hated magic in comics & superhero films
> >and I feel that the mainstream audience is the same.
>
> I love Zatanna...but I'm not sure the character would fit in a JLA
> film...I did like her in Smallville though...I also liked her in the
> Batman Animated Series...I wish they had used her more.
>
> >Elongated Man, I feel the same about. To the mainstream audience IMHO
> >he's gonna seem silly just because of his powers, so I'd keep him out
> >(once again, this is a childhood prejudice which I may be wrongly
> >applying to everyone)
Zatanna, Elongated Man, Atom...these are all people who work best in a
group format .
And BTW, I think I was misunderstood when I talked about characters in
Star Wars, the Matrix, etc. I was speaking more about the secondary
characters as opposed to the leads. In Star Wars, the audience was hit
immediately with Darth Vader, Storm Troopers, Tusken Raiders, Jawas,
droids, "The Force" blah blah blah...all this without the advantage of
three crappy prequels.
I believe you can explain a characters origin in 5-15 minutes, no
problem.
grinningdemon
<janklo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>My two cents on a Wonder Woman movie - laugh if you will; I believe
>they should continue right from the TV series. Diana Prince, aka
>Wonder Woman, is a government super-agent. She fought in WWII, and has
>worked for the U.S. ever since. She married Steve Trevor after the War
>as well. He aged, she didn't. He dies at like 70 at the film's
>beginning and so we've got a woman now widowed and afraid to love
>again and crap like that. (And yes, that's a lift out of Gruenwald's
>Squadron Supreme. DC should be able to steal as many SS plot lines as
>they want!)
Sorry but I kind of hate that idea...I really hate the whole
government super agent approach (a big part of what I dislike about
the current comics)...I would personally prefer a good take on her
origin...something more in line with George Perez's take on the
character...play up the mythological aspects more to really make the
character shine.
>
>They should be careful with villains. Dr Psycho, Giganta, Cheetah...I
>can't see any one of them as carrying a movie on their own. There can
>either be a team-up or make up somebody new. I would go balls-out and
>introduce Apokolips to the movies. Darkseid, Orion, Mr Miracle etc
>etc. Since a lot of films with female protagonists haven't done great
>lately (with Whiteout being the latest bomb) you've gotta throw
>everything at the screen -- eye-popping visuals, cool vehicles, big
>fights, etc. This has to be a cool film that becomes a must-see for
>the kids.
The only WW villains I could see working as the big bad for the film
would be Ares or possibly Circe...or maybe even Hercules (since the DC
version pretty much walked all over the Amazons).
Bringing in the New Gods (particularly Darkseid) would probably be
good for a JLA movie but not so much for Wonder Woman...and, even
then, I'd save them for a JLA sequel rather than using them up front.
Duggy
wrote:
> Uderplaying the big three as you suggest in unrealistic...they are the
> most popular characters and, as such, any film version would
> undoubtedly give them more significant roles...furthermore, when it
> really that much better known than Flash or GL at this point...it's
> been a long time since that TV show, after all.
Agreed... although I had a horrible thought. A JLA film would
probably have the first Superman/Batman meeting or suggest an earlier
off-screen meeting. Either isn't as good as say a Superman/Batman
film to really do that moment justice...
> The thing is, aside from the Hawks, your plot doesn't really cover
> those other origins...they just spin out of it...it doesn't really
> simplify or make it any easier to take the time out of the story to
> tell the origins...think about it...you're in the middle of a
> Thanagarian invasion and you really want to take screen time away from
> that to cover Abin Sur's final moments and establish Hal Jordan...same
> goes for Flash or Martian Manhunter...I just think it's too much.
Abin Sur's final moment is part of the invasion - he's killed fighting
invaders. J'Onn's is part of the plot, Mar is wiped out by the
invasion force on the way to Mars.
Flash is forced in, I admit.
> >I think, conceptually, in a "why form the JLA" sort of way the Big
> >Three being captured early in the film and freed for the big action
> >stuff at the end works.
> But, without establishing the other characters in their own movies,
> there will be a fair amount of fans who would go to the movie
> specifically for the big three and keeping them sidelined for most of
> the movie is only going to disappoint...
No just fans, but the majority of the mainstream audience. I've
admitted that.
I'd certainly push the advertising in the direction of "Who will step
up when the world's biggest heroes fall" with shots of Batman,
Superman & Wondy being taken down. Honesty in advertising will at
least take the "ripped off" feel from the audience... it won't stop
the disappointment, but at least no one can say "they told me it was
going to be about Superman..."
> it's much better to watch the
> team come together over the course of the movie and actually see them
> develop as a team (kind of like the beginning of the Justice League
> cartoon) rather than just seeing the big guns pop up at the end for
> the final fight.
I'd have Barry get his powers and try to form the JLA with Abin,
Wondy, Bats & Superman before they get captured... then develop the
team over the rest of the film.
> >The big problem is audience (popular & critical) reaction which would
> >probably "feel ripped off" by it.
> Exactly.
Then why did you need to restate what I'd already said?
> >So what do you think of a Thanagarian invasion that wipes out Mars
> >leaving a sole survivor, captures Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman &
> >Abin Sur to eliminate resistence, accidently causing Sur's death in a
> >crash leaving him to pick a successor... An invasion which is finally
> >defeated by one of their own turning rebel and ending up staying on
> >Earth?
> Again, I think it's too much for one movie...but, if there were
> already GL and Flash movies establishing those characters and getting
> their origins out of the way, your plot idea isn't bad and
> streamlining it by only needing to introduce the Hawks and the
> Manhunter leaves more time for the plot itself and to actually see the
> team come together and do their thing...I just think it works much
> better.
The Flash I have to agree with, but GL, nah... I think it works in the
flow of the film.
> >Batman is... except this is easy Marvel style where you do the
> >"prequel" for the team-up rather than the other way around... I mean,
> >is the current Batman really JLA material? Will Christian do a JLA
> >film? Will he do it and not blow the budget? Will the makers of the
> >Batman film not get upset about someone else playing with their toys?
> That is the question...but, at most, I'd say he'll do one or two more
> Batman movies anyway...so, if they put the JLA off for a while to make
> room for the other films, by that time, they could recast the role if
> necessary...it's not like people aren't familar enough with Batman to
> get past it...hell, just look at how many actors have already played
> the character in the last 20 years.
Even, I think if there was still an ongoing Batman series, I'd
consider a different Batman just to stop any crossed wires... I know
some of the audience would get confused... but that happens.
> I agree that a good Superman movie is always welcome...and
> preferred...but not necessary to introduce the character at this
> point...he's well enough known to let it ride if need be.
Agreed.
> >> GL, and Flash should get their own movies...
> >They should, but spinning off from a JLA film might make be a better
> >way to give them exposure so the films have a bigger chance.
> I disagree...if anything, watering down their origins and
> characterizations to fit into a JLA movie could hurt their chances of
> subsequent success with solo films.
Well, it would be a balancing at - increasing public recognition vs
damaging public perception.
Then danger occurs the other way as well... a bad Flash film could
damage the JLA film's image...
> That is essentially what Marvel is doing and it seems to be working
> out so far...
So far. A really successful Iron Man film with a sequel in the works
and a Hulk film counteracting the bad taste from the previous film...
but we have at least two more films to go before we're close to the
Avengers film... and we have a new owner who might pull the plug at
any time.
> super-hero movies (and comic movies, in general) have
> been really successful of late...both because technology has
> progressed enough to do them well and because Hollywood has
> essentially run out of new ideas...and the audience is definitely
> there...I actually think even the non-comics fans would appreciate
> seeing something like this develop over the course of several movies.
Maybe, but I'm talking about the attension spans of execs.
> >The Hawks are at least a two-for plot wise... and I guess have a built
> >in romance sub-plot.
> I actually think introducing Hawkman alone might work best...then have
> Hawkgirl come along in a sequel (or in a Hawkman film)...possibly even
> allowing them to blend the blend some of the Golden Age elements into
> the story instead of just making them alien cops.
I can see that.
> Alternatively, you could introduce them both in the first film but
> only have Hawkman side with earth (at least at first).
I was actually thinking Hawkgirl is the rebel and Hawkman a henchman
who turns because of his love for... eww.
> >As I say, for a sequel I'd do an Aquaman film and build the cast
> >around that.
> Possibly...maybe have Aquaman lose his thrown and Atlantis, under the
> usurper, attacks the surface...not exactly original I know but it
> could still make a good movie.
Exactly. I gives Aquaman a story and it includes the rest of the
cast.
> Black Canary would be a good choice to add in the sequel...I actually
> prefer her WITHOUT GA...I never really liked them together anyway but,
> moreover, I think BC really came into her own after they split...she's
> mre interesting without him...and, in forcing them back together, DC
> has made the character weaker, in my opinion.
I mostly agree.
> Furthermore, having seen what Smallville has done with Green Arrow, I
> think it would be really hard to put him into the movie without having
> him come off as a Batman knock-off...that is, after all, how he
> started in the comics...and a movie wouldn't have time to really
> establish the differences.
True... and my idea of using him to replace Batman if needed wouldn't
help that.
> I really can't see a Martian Manhunter movie working out...he's a
> great character but he's never really worked on his own...and, as much
> as I would personally love to see it, I kind of doubt the Hawks could
> carry their own film either.
I liked his solo series but it had no real direction and a film would
be like that too.
> >I'd certainly increase the role of at least one of the big three
> >especially after downplaying them in the first film.
> >Atom I'd keep as in reserve for a replacement for Flash, GL or J'Onn
> >if needed.
> Ray Palmer certainly wouldn't be a bad choice to introduce in a later
> film...possibly even introduce him as a scientist in the first film
> (basically a cameo appearances) and then have him become the Atom down
> the line.
That's fun for fans, but it can be annoying if it never happens or has
to be recast, etc.
> Certain characters just wouldn't translate well to live action...I'm
> not even sure about Martian ...
I think he would work in film... but in the Worf role. Background
mostly there for brute force and subtefuge... no character stuff or
real focus.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Zatanna, Elongated Man, Atom...these are all people who work best in a
> group format .
I don't think Elongated Man works on film (unless it's like The Mask)
and I don't think Zatanna works in a JLA film.
> I believe you can explain a characters origin in 5-15 minutes, no
> problem.
Ignoring, for the moment the Trinity, let's assume, for argument that
they don't need an origin told.
That leaves 4 or more origins. More than 20mins of a 120min film...
and it's not just the time, it's the stop-start of things telling
them.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Bringing in the New Gods (particularly Darkseid) would probably be
> good for a JLA movie but not so much for Wonder Woman...and, even
> then, I'd save them for a JLA sequel rather than using them up front.
I think that they are doable for a Superman film... however the
mainstream audience wouldn't accept it.
The other idea I like is a completely stand alone film... don't even
mention the rest of the DCU. Just tell it as a grand story.
However, that one is huge budget and a huge risk that probably won't
pay off. But, I think, the best way to tell that story.
===
= DUG.
===
Jason Todd
wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:39:19 -0700 (PDT), Jason Todd
>
The thing with the whole Greek mythology thing is it's REALLY gotta be
done right.
I could be wrong, but there hasn't been a Greek-Mythology film (gods
and all, "Troy" doesn't count) since Clash of the Titans, almost 30
years ago. It's hard to pull off without being campy. It will be
interesting to see what the remake of that film will be like.
> Bringing in the New Gods (particularly Darkseid) would probably be
> good for a JLA movie but not so much for Wonder Woman...and, even
> then, I'd save them for a JLA sequel rather than using them up front.
You don't necessarily have to use New Gods just once. There could be
return trips by Supes or the JLA.
John
Why bother with origins at all? If you're going to do the JLA, your
audience will be expecting DC's more famous characters. The "big
three", as you stated above, can obviously be skipped - but
personally, I'm of the opinion that you can skip telling the origin
for the other likely suspects as well. Think back to the days of the
Super Friends. They didn't bother with character origins when that
series started, and it's audience (of primarily small children) had no
problems figuring out the characters. Since any JLA movie would
presumably be targeted at a slightly higher age group than the super
Friends, how about we just assume that said audience is at least as
intelligent and pop-culture aware as we were way back in the Super
Friends dark ages and have a movie that just leaps into the real plot.
Just a thought.
JD
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Sep 18, 11:05�am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
>wrote:
>> Uderplaying the big three as you suggest in unrealistic...they are the
>> most popular characters and, as such, any film version would
>> undoubtedly give them more significant roles...furthermore, when it
>> comes to film, it's really only the big two... Wonder Woman isn't
>> really that much better known than Flash or GL at this point...it's
>> been a long time since that TV show, after all.
>
>Agreed... although I had a horrible thought. A JLA film would
>probably have the first Superman/Batman meeting or suggest an earlier
>off-screen meeting. Either isn't as good as say a Superman/Batman
>film to really do that moment justice...
I could totally go for a World's Finest film as another prequel...it
could serve to introduce THIS version of both characters and to start
off the team dynamic that would eventually develop further in the JLA
movie...you could possibly even introduce a couple of other characters
in minor roles that would be fleshed out in later movies...my idea for
Ray Palmer could easily be adapted for this...possibly make him a
scientist at STAR labs or some such...he could even be a common thread
among the prequels to help establish that they are set in the same
world.
And, remember, as long as these prequels are kept mostly seperate from
each other, there is nothing to stop them from producing multiple
films simultaneously...after all, Iron Man and Incredible Hulk came
out the same summer...of course, they would want to space them out
somewhat but they wouldn't have to limit it to one a year.
>
>> The thing is, aside from the Hawks, your plot doesn't really cover
>> those other origins...they just spin out of it...it doesn't really
>> simplify or make it any easier to take the time out of the story to
>> tell the origins...think about it...you're in the middle of a
>> Thanagarian invasion and you really want to take screen time away from
>> that to cover Abin Sur's final moments and establish Hal Jordan...same
>> goes for Flash or Martian Manhunter...I just think it's too much.
>
>Abin Sur's final moment is part of the invasion - he's killed fighting
>invaders. J'Onn's is part of the plot, Mar is wiped out by the
>invasion force on the way to Mars.
But you still have to establish buth Hal and J'Onn as characters...and
that would take a fair amount of time...and I just think the GL origin
deserves its own movie...there is so much that would be lost if it had
to be trimmed down to 10 minutes or less to fit in a team movie.
>Flash is forced in, I admit.
For starters.
>> >I think, conceptually, in a "why form the JLA" sort of way the Big
>> >Three being captured early in the film and freed for the big action
>> >stuff at the end works.
>> But, without establishing the other characters in their own movies,
>> there will be a fair amount of fans who would go to the movie
>> specifically for the big three and keeping them sidelined for most of
>> the movie is only going to disappoint...
>
>No just fans, but the majority of the mainstream audience. I've
>admitted that.
>
>I'd certainly push the advertising in the direction of "Who will step
>up when the world's biggest heroes fall" with shots of Batman,
>Superman & Wondy being taken down. Honesty in advertising will at
>least take the "ripped off" feel from the audience... it won't stop
>the disappointment, but at least no one can say "they told me it was
>going to be about Superman..."
OK...then you agree this part wouldn't work out...so why keep bringing
it up?
>> it's much better to watch the
>> team come together over the course of the movie and actually see them
>> develop as a team (kind of like the beginning of the Justice League
>> cartoon) rather than just seeing the big guns pop up at the end for
>> the final fight.
>
>I'd have Barry get his powers and try to form the JLA with Abin,
>Wondy, Bats & Superman before they get captured... then develop the
>team over the rest of the film.
Like I've said, that's a lot for one movie...Barry's origin and the
formation of a proto-JLA...and this idea would even require you to
establish Abin Sur in his own right just so he can die...all before
the invasion even starts...and then tacking on J'Onn's and Hal's
origins in the middle...it's too much...I'm sure it could be done but
it wouldn't make for a very satisfying movie if you just have to
breeze past all those major plot points to keep it from being 4 hours
long.
>> >The big problem is audience (popular & critical) reaction which would
>> >probably "feel ripped off" by it.
>> Exactly.
>
>Then why did you need to restate what I'd already said?
Because I'm responding point by point...and because I didn't notice
this point until I'd already written the above response.
>> >So what do you think of a Thanagarian invasion that wipes out Mars
>> >leaving a sole survivor, captures Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman &
>> >Abin Sur to eliminate resistence, accidently causing Sur's death in a
>> >crash leaving him to pick a successor... �An invasion which is finally
>> >defeated by one of their own turning rebel and ending up staying on
>> >Earth?
>> Again, I think it's too much for one movie...but, if there were
>> already GL and Flash movies establishing those characters and getting
>> their origins out of the way, your plot idea isn't bad and
>> streamlining it by only needing to introduce the Hawks and the
>> Manhunter leaves more time for the plot itself and to actually see the
>> team come together and do their thing...I just think it works much
>> better.
>
>The Flash I have to agree with, but GL, nah... I think it works in the
>flow of the film.
We'll have to agree to disagree then...if anything, GL needs his own
film more than Flash because his origin and mythos is considerably
more complicated.
>> >Batman is... except this is easy Marvel style where you do the
>> >"prequel" for the team-up rather than the other way around... I mean,
>> >is the current Batman really JLA material? �Will Christian do a JLA
>> >film? �Will he do it and not blow the budget? �Will the makers of the
>> >Batman film not get upset about someone else playing with their toys?
>> That is the question...but, at most, I'd say he'll do one or two more
>> Batman movies anyway...so, if they put the JLA off for a while to make
>> room for the other films, by that time, they could recast the role if
>> necessary...it's not like people aren't familar enough with Batman to
>> get past it...hell, just look at how many actors have already played
>> the character in the last 20 years.
>
>Even, I think if there was still an ongoing Batman series, I'd
>consider a different Batman just to stop any crossed wires... I know
>some of the audience would get confused... but that happens.
A different Batman would probably be best anyway...I like Bale in the
role but his version wouldn't really fit in a JLA movie...his Batman
is too down to earth to exist in the same world with Superman.
>> >> GL, and Flash should get their own movies...
>> >They should, but spinning off from a JLA film might make be a better
>> >way to give them exposure so the films have a bigger chance.
>> I disagree...if anything, watering down their origins and
>> characterizations to fit into a JLA movie could hurt their chances of
>> subsequent success with solo films.
>
>Well, it would be a balancing at - increasing public recognition vs
>damaging public perception.
>
>Then danger occurs the other way as well... a bad Flash film could
>damage the JLA film's image...
Well, the goal is, of course, to make the films GOOD...I thought that
went without saying...but we could just as easily end up with a shitty
JLA movie that would torpedo any possible spin-offs.
>> That is essentially what Marvel is doing and it seems to be working
>> out so far...
>
>So far. A really successful Iron Man film with a sequel in the works
>and a Hulk film counteracting the bad taste from the previous film...
>but we have at least two more films to go before we're close to the
>Avengers film... and we have a new owner who might pull the plug at
>any time.
Given the success of Iron Man and Incredible Hulk, I doubt that will
happen...provided they can keep up the quality in the future
films...we can only hope.
>> super-hero movies (and comic movies, in general) have
>> been really successful of late...both because technology has
>> progressed enough to do them well and because Hollywood has
>> essentially run out of new ideas...and the audience is definitely
>> there...I actually think even the non-comics fans would appreciate
>> seeing something like this develop over the course of several movies.
>
>Maybe, but I'm talking about the attension spans of execs.
Again, this approach seems to be working creatively and is certainly
making money...the execs shouldn't have a problem.
>> >The Hawks are at least a two-for plot wise... and I guess have a built
>> >in romance sub-plot.
>> I actually think introducing Hawkman alone might work best...then have
>> Hawkgirl come along in a sequel (or in a Hawkman film)...possibly even
>> allowing them to blend the blend some of the Golden Age elements into
>> the story instead of just making them alien cops.
>
>I can see that.
>
>> Alternatively, you could introduce them both in the first film but
>> only have Hawkman side with earth (at least at first).
>
>I was actually thinking Hawkgirl is the rebel and Hawkman a henchman
>who turns because of his love for... eww.
Maybe start off with both of them and have Hawkgirl die...then
introduce a different Hawkgirl (possibly more in line with Kendra
Saunders) in a subsequent film...or model it on Tim Truman's Hawkworld
mini...either way, downplay the love story at first and build up to it
slowly.
> > >As I say, for a sequel I'd do an Aquaman film and build the cast
>> >around that.
>> Possibly...maybe have Aquaman lose his thrown and Atlantis, under the
>> usurper, attacks the surface...not exactly original I know but it
>> could still make a good movie.
>
>Exactly. I gives Aquaman a story and it includes the rest of the
>cast.
The only problem I see is that it's a little too much about
Aquaman...it would pretty much make him the star of the film.
>> Black Canary would be a good choice to add in the sequel...I actually
>> prefer her WITHOUT GA...I never really liked them together anyway but,
>> moreover, I think BC really came into her own after they split...she's
>> mre interesting without him...and, in forcing them back together, DC
>> has made the character weaker, in my opinion.
>
>I mostly agree.
Which part troubles you?
>> Furthermore, having seen what Smallville has done with Green Arrow, I
>> think it would be really hard to put him into the movie without having
>> him come off as a Batman knock-off...that is, after all, how he
>> started in the comics...and a movie wouldn't have time to really
>> establish the differences.
>
>True... and my idea of using him to replace Batman if needed wouldn't
>help that.
There are quite a few characters in comics that are superficially very
similar...it's probably best not to throw them into the same film or
franchise to point that out.
>> I really can't see a Martian Manhunter movie working out...he's a
>> great character but he's never really worked on his own...and, as much
>> as I would personally love to see it, I kind of doubt the Hawks could
>> carry their own film either.
>
>I liked his solo series but it had no real direction and a film would
>be like that too.
I'm just not sure the character has enough of a following to carry his
own film...and the similarities to Superman could work against him
just as with Batman and GA.
>> >I'd certainly increase the role of at least one of the big three
>> >especially after downplaying them in the first film.
>> >Atom I'd keep as in reserve for a replacement for Flash, GL or J'Onn
>> >if needed.
>> Ray Palmer certainly wouldn't be a bad choice to introduce in a later
>> film...possibly even introduce him as a scientist in the first film
>> (basically a cameo appearances) and then have him become the Atom down
>> the line.
>
>That's fun for fans, but it can be annoying if it never happens or has
>to be recast, etc.
Well, this level of coordination between films would obviously require
advance planning to pull off...but it could be great...and, even if
they never followed through with having him become the Atom, it would
still be a nice nod to the comics.
grinningdemon
It's probably too many characters and too much back story to make it
work...and, as you suggest, they definitely aren't well enough known
to warrant a big budget film of their own...but Darkseid is too great
a villain not to be used...and he is actually a believable threat for
the entire JLA.
grinningdemon
I agree it will be hard to pull off...but I really do hope they play
up the mythology aspect because that is what makes this character so
unique...otherwise, she might as well just be a female Superman...if
they can pull off Lord of the Rings, I think they can do justice to
Wonder Woman.
>> Bringing in the New Gods (particularly Darkseid) would probably be
>> good for a JLA movie but not so much for Wonder Woman...and, even
>> then, I'd save them for a JLA sequel rather than using them up front.
>
>You don't necessarily have to use New Gods just once. There could be
>return trips by Supes or the JLA.
Fair enough...but there are so many other great things to play with in
the DCU so I kind of hope they wouldn't keep revisiting the New
Gods...but, after their introduction, you could have one or two of
them join the League...as Morrison did with Barda and Orion during his
JLA run.
grinningdemon
wrote:
A more mature audience would want to know more about the
characters...and, aside from Batman and Superman, the rest aren't that
well known to the general public...plus there are a lot of great
origins here that deserve to be told in this format.
Billy Bissette
12661e...@q35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
Cartoons on TV aren't like movies in theaters. You can get by
without origins there. The Teen Titans animated series waited until
near the end of its fifth and final season to have an episode that
showed how the group formed, and most of the team never really had
origins given. Though there have been the occassional episodes of
Scooby Doo that touched upon the gang getting together, such things
were never necessary and never remembered anyway.
However with movies, there is an expectation that a first film
will be self-contained with background for significant characters.
With a team movie though you might not get origins for everyone.
Rather, you get origins for a few important characters, a few of
which may also be connected to the main conflict of the film. Take
X-Men for an example, where some characters got lots of origin
material, multiple who were integral to Magneto's plot, while others
got little to none. Watchmen gave bits for a few and a full origin
for Dr. Manhatten (which was integral to the plot).
Duggy
> Why bother with origins at all? If you're going to do the JLA, your
> audience will be expecting DC's more famous characters. The "big
> three", as you stated above, can obviously be skipped - but
> personally, I'm of the opinion that you can skip telling the origin
> for the other likely suspects as well. Think back to the days of the
> Super Friends. They didn't bother with character origins when that
> series started, and it's audience (of primarily small children) had no
> problems figuring out the characters. Since any JLA movie would
> presumably be targeted at a slightly higher age group than the super
> Friends, how about we just assume that said audience is at least as
> intelligent and pop-culture aware as we were way back in the Super
> Friends dark ages and have a movie that just leaps into the real plot.
People looking at a series colourful half hour or less drawings for
free are expecting at lot less than people paying money to see a self
contained film.
It's just the way it is.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
wrote:
> >The other idea I like is a completely stand alone film... don't even
> >mention the rest of the DCU. Just tell it as a grand story.
> >However, that one is huge budget and a huge risk that probably won't
> >pay off. But, I think, the best way to tell that story.
> It's probably too many characters and too much back story to make it
> work...and, as you suggest, they definitely aren't well enough known
> to warrant a big budget film of their own...but Darkseid is too great
> a villain not to be used...and he is actually a believable threat for
> the entire JLA.
What about a New Gods film which is basically Orion or Scott vs
Darkseid... if successful add more detail of the New Gods after
that...
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
wrote:
> >Agreed... although I had a horrible thought. A JLA film would
> >probably have the first Superman/Batman meeting or suggest an earlier
> >off-screen meeting. Either isn't as good as say a Superman/Batman
> >film to really do that moment justice...
> I could totally go for a World's Finest film as another prequel...it
> could serve to introduce THIS version of both characters and to start
> off the team dynamic that would eventually develop further in the JLA
> movie...
Could work.
> you could possibly even introduce a couple of other characters
> in minor roles that would be fleshed out in later movies...
Nah.
> my idea for
> Ray Palmer could easily be adapted for this...possibly make him a
> scientist at STAR labs or some such...he could even be a common thread
> among the prequels to help establish that they are set in the same
> world.
I think putting them together in the JLA makes them the same world...
> And, remember, as long as these prequels are kept mostly seperate from
> each other, there is nothing to stop them from producing multiple
> films simultaneously...after all, Iron Man and Incredible Hulk came
> out the same summer...of course, they would want to space them out
> somewhat but they wouldn't have to limit it to one a year.
Yeah, but you're asking Warner Brothers to double their expense and
double thier risk.
> >Abin Sur's final moment is part of the invasion - he's killed fighting
> >invaders. J'Onn's is part of the plot, Mar is wiped out by the
> >invasion force on the way to Mars.
> But you still have to establish buth Hal and J'Onn as characters...
Happens as the film progresses, like most films.
> and
> that would take a fair amount of time...and I just think the GL origin
> deserves its own movie...there is so much that would be lost if it had
> to be trimmed down to 10 minutes or less to fit in a team movie.
The moment of origin, like in his first story doesn't need much... I
think the post-JLA GL needs to explore the Guardians and stuff,
though.
> OK...then you agree this part wouldn't work out...so why keep bringing
> it up?
Because it needs to be done to allow the minor character air time or
you get Star Trek & X-Men which are Picard & crew and Wolverine & some
other guys... Superman, Batman & some colourfully dressed extras is
not the JLA film I want to see but it's the one we'll get if those
characters aren't downplayed... and pulling them out of the majority
of the film does that. And honesty in advertising and promotion gets
around the box-office backlash.
> >I'd have Barry get his powers and try to form the JLA with Abin,
> >Wondy, Bats & Superman before they get captured... then develop the
> >team over the rest of the film.
> Like I've said, that's a lot for one movie...Barry's origin and the
> formation of a proto-JLA...
It's big but not undoable.
> and this idea would even require you to
> establish Abin Sur in his own right just so he can die...
In crazy land.
> all before the invasion even starts...
You start with the Invasion of Mars...
> and then tacking on J'Onn's and Hal's
> origins in the middle...
J'Onn's origin is the beginning... Hal's is before the invasion of
Earth.
What weird definition of "middle" are you using?
> it's too much...I'm sure it could be done but
> it wouldn't make for a very satisfying movie if you just have to
> breeze past all those major plot points to keep it from being 4 hours
> long.
That's about 45 minutes of film, then you have the full on invasion of
Earth which could easily be done in an hour. Throw on 10 minutes of
establishing the JLA proper at the end and you're done.
> >The Flash I have to agree with, but GL, nah... I think it works in the
> >flow of the film.
> We'll have to agree to disagree then...if anything, GL needs his own
> film more than Flash because his origin and mythos is considerably
> more complicated.
See above. The GL mythos does need its own film... but that can be
done after JLA1.
> A different Batman would probably be best anyway...I like Bale in the
> role but his version wouldn't really fit in a JLA movie...his Batman
> is too down to earth to exist in the same world with Superman.
Agreed.
> >Well, it would be a balancing at - increasing public recognition vs
> >damaging public perception.
> >Then danger occurs the other way as well... a bad Flash film could
> >damage the JLA film's image...
> Well, the goal is, of course, to make the films GOOD...I thought that
> went without saying...
Duh. The point is to try to make good films... but even with the best
intentions that doesn't happen. I can understand every choice made by
the Superman Returns people and can see how they thought it would make
a good film... but they made a bad film.
> but we could just as easily end up with a shitty
> JLA movie that would torpedo any possible spin-offs.
Let's say a JLA film tanked... it would still give the characters
public recognition. That means an unrelated Flash film becomes
possible, an unrelated GL film, etc...
If the Flash & GL film fails it kills the JLA film and thus a whole
lot of other character's exposure.
> Given the success of Iron Man and Incredible Hulk, I doubt that will
> happen...
Then you don't know Hollywood. New execs often kill previous people's
projects because if The Avengers series succeeds than someone else
gets the credit. If it fails they get the blame.
> provided they can keep up the quality in the future
> films...we can only hope.
Box-Office is not the only things that execs consider.
> Again, this approach seems to be working creatively and is certainly
> making money...the execs shouldn't have a problem.
I wish it worked that way. Some good films and TV shows wouldn't have
been killed off otherwise...
> Maybe start off with both of them and have Hawkgirl die...then
> introduce a different Hawkgirl (possibly more in line with Kendra
> Saunders) in a subsequent film...or model it on Tim Truman's Hawkworld
> mini...either way, downplay the love story at first and build up to it
> slowly.
Fair enough.
> >Exactly. I gives Aquaman a story and it includes the rest of the
> >cast.
> The only problem I see is that it's a little too much about
> Aquaman...it would pretty much make him the star of the film.
It would be a danger...
> >> Black Canary would be a good choice to add in the sequel...I actually
> >> prefer her WITHOUT GA...I never really liked them together anyway but,
> >> moreover, I think BC really came into her own after they split...she's
> >> mre interesting without him...and, in forcing them back together, DC
> >> has made the character weaker, in my opinion.
> >I mostly agree.
> Which part troubles you?
Nothing troubles me, but I never been a big GA/BC reader so I won't
100% agree because I'm working on limited knowledge.
> >True... and my idea of using him to replace Batman if needed wouldn't
> >help that.
> There are quite a few characters in comics that are superficially very
> similar...it's probably best not to throw them into the same film or
> franchise to point that out.
Actually, throwing superficially similar characters together can point
out the differences.
Data filled the Spock role in TNG but it wasn't until the Spock
episodes that the differences (one trying to be human, one trying not
to be) became clear...
So, putting GA & Batman in the same film could clear up the
differences... replacing one with the other (like I suggested) could
make things worse.
> >I liked his solo series but it had no real direction and a film would
> >be like that too.
> I'm just not sure the character has enough of a following to carry his
> own film...and the similarities to Superman could work against him
> just as with Batman and GA.
Agreed. The beauty of a JLA film is that it establishes these
characters and gives the ones with not solo-film ability somewhere to
exist in film. Not every character needs its own film.
> >That's fun for fans, but it can be annoying if it never happens or has
> >to be recast, etc.
> Well, this level of coordination between films would obviously require
> advance planning to pull off...but it could be great...and, even if
> they never followed through with having him become the Atom, it would
> still be a nice nod to the comics.
Yeah, but they say that about the Lizard in Spiderman films... and
that just annoys me.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
The characters are too obscure...I just can't see a New Gods film ever
happening...and, if by chance it did, they would pretty much have to
be spun off from another franchise like Superman or JLA.
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Sep 19, 10:01�am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
>wrote:
>> my idea for
>> Ray Palmer could easily be adapted for this...possibly make him a
>> scientist at STAR labs or some such...he could even be a common thread
>> among the prequels to help establish that they are set in the same
>> world.
>
>I think putting them together in the JLA makes them the same world...
Right...but there's no reason not to introduce a little commonality in
the earlier films as part of a build up...just as Marvel is trying to
do.
>> And, remember, as long as these prequels are kept mostly seperate from
>> each other, there is nothing to stop them from producing multiple
>> films simultaneously...after all, Iron Man and Incredible Hulk came
>> out the same summer...of course, they would want to space them out
>> somewhat but they wouldn't have to limit it to one a year.
>
>Yeah, but you're asking Warner Brothers to double their expense and
>double thier risk.
Again, the audience is clearly there and many if not most of these
characters are already being developed for films anyway...making a
little connection between them doesn't seem to add much risk.
>> >Abin Sur's final moment is part of the invasion - he's killed fighting
>> >invaders. �J'Onn's is part of the plot, Mar is wiped out by the
>> >invasion force on the way to Mars.
>> But you still have to establish buth Hal and J'Onn as characters...
>
>Happens as the film progresses, like most films.
Most films don't have this many lead characters...and, of those that
do, they mostly end up following that Star Trek/X-Men trend where one
or two characters get most of the spotlight...if most of the
characters are already introduced in their own films, then they can be
treated more or less equally in the JLA film.
>> and
>> that would take a fair amount of time...and I just think the GL origin
>> deserves its own movie...there is so much that would be lost if it had
>> to be trimmed down to 10 minutes or less to fit in a team movie.
>
>The moment of origin, like in his first story doesn't need much... I
>think the post-JLA GL needs to explore the Guardians and stuff,
>though.
And I think that would work better coming pre-JLA.
>
>> OK...then you agree this part wouldn't work out...so why keep bringing
>> it up?
>
>Because it needs to be done to allow the minor character air time or
>you get Star Trek & X-Men which are Picard & crew and Wolverine & some
>other guys... Superman, Batman & some colourfully dressed extras is
>not the JLA film I want to see but it's the one we'll get if those
>characters aren't downplayed... and pulling them out of the majority
>of the film does that. And honesty in advertising and promotion gets
>around the box-office backlash.
Again, that wouldn't be necessary if most of the characters were
already introduced...then we can just see the team come together and
kick ass...and no fan has to be disappointed over the conspicuous
absence of the most popular characters.
>> >I'd have Barry get his powers and try to form the JLA with Abin,
>> >Wondy, Bats & Superman before they get captured... then develop the
>> >team over the rest of the film.
>> Like I've said, that's a lot for one movie...Barry's origin and the
>> formation of a proto-JLA...
>
>It's big but not undoable.
No...but I don't think it can be done WELL.
>> and this idea would even require you to
>> establish Abin Sur in his own right just so he can die...
>
>In crazy land.
Really? So a random alien pops up to join the team and no one is
supposed to wonder who he is or what the hell he's doing there?
Sounds like great writing to me.
>> all before the invasion even starts...
>
>You start with the Invasion of Mars...
I thought you just said you start with Barry getting his powers...make
up your mind.
>> and then tacking on J'Onn's and Hal's
>> origins in the middle...
>
>J'Onn's origin is the beginning... Hal's is before the invasion of
>Earth.
If Abin dies before the invasion of earth, then when exactly is he
supposed to be hanging out with Barry and the big three?
>What weird definition of "middle" are you using?
A general term for anything that isn't at the beginning or end of the
film...sorry for not being more specific...but you should be happy I
allowed you another opportunity to be snotty.
>
>> it's too much...I'm sure it could be done but
>> it wouldn't make for a very satisfying movie if you just have to
>> breeze past all those major plot points to keep it from being 4 hours
>> long.
>
>That's about 45 minutes of film, then you have the full on invasion of
>Earth which could easily be done in an hour. Throw on 10 minutes of
>establishing the JLA proper at the end and you're done.
Again, you're glossing over a lot of great moments in those first 45
minutes and there's really no reason for it.
>> >The Flash I have to agree with, but GL, nah... I think it works in the
>> >flow of the film.
>> We'll have to agree to disagree then...if anything, GL needs his own
>> film more than Flash because his origin and mythos is considerably
>> more complicated.
>
>See above. The GL mythos does need its own film... but that can be
>done after JLA1.
Or it could come before and we can have a proper origin instead of
condensing it down to 5 minutes in a group film.
>> >Well, it would be a balancing at - increasing public recognition vs
>> >damaging public perception.
>
>> >Then danger occurs the other way as well... a bad Flash film could
>> >damage the JLA film's image...
>
>> Well, the goal is, of course, to make the films GOOD...I thought that
>> went without saying...
>
>Duh. The point is to try to make good films... but even with the best
>intentions that doesn't happen. I can understand every choice made by
>the Superman Returns people and can see how they thought it would make
>a good film... but they made a bad film.
Well then you have a greater understanding of Superman Returns than I
do...because I absolutely CANNOT see how anyone thought it would make
a good film...but, regardless of the quality, it wasn't exactly a
flop.
>> but we could just as easily end up with a shitty
>> JLA movie that would torpedo any possible spin-offs.
>
>Let's say a JLA film tanked... it would still give the characters
>public recognition. That means an unrelated Flash film becomes
>possible, an unrelated GL film, etc...
OK...so why would a poor GL flick kill a JLA move then? It's still
public recognition. If it doesn't work, leave him out of JLA...or use
a different GL...or simply a new version of the same one. As long as
the films mostly stand on their own, there is nothing to force them to
use that version in the JLA...regardless of the original plan.
>If the Flash & GL film fails it kills the JLA film and thus a whole
>lot of other character's exposure.
Who? Martian Manhunter? Given the massive popularity of super hero
films these days, it's only a matter of time before the major
characters get films of their own anyway...that pretty much only
leaves MM and the Hawks (from your line-up) out in the cold...and it's
extremely unlikely that either will get films of their own regardless
of the success of JLA.
>
>> Given the success of Iron Man and Incredible Hulk, I doubt that will
>> happen...
>
>Then you don't know Hollywood. New execs often kill previous people's
>projects because if The Avengers series succeeds than someone else
>gets the credit. If it fails they get the blame.
OK...that could just as easily kill any potential sequels or spin-offs
if you start with a JLA film up front.
>> provided they can keep up the quality in the future
>> films...we can only hope.
>
>Box-Office is not the only things that execs consider.
Of course not...but money is always the greatest motivating factor.
>> Again, this approach seems to be working creatively and is certainly
>> making money...the execs shouldn't have a problem.
>
>I wish it worked that way. Some good films and TV shows wouldn't have
>been killed off otherwise...
Well, we can debate how fickle execs can be all day long...but I
thought the focus of this discussion was on the best approach for a
JLA film...even the best project is always at the mercy of the
execs...your approach or mine.
>> >> Black Canary would be a good choice to add in the sequel...I actually
>> >> prefer her WITHOUT GA...I never really liked them together anyway but,
>> >> moreover, I think BC really came into her own after they split...she's
>> >> mre interesting without him...and, in forcing them back together, DC
>> >> has made the character weaker, in my opinion.
>> >I mostly agree.
>> Which part troubles you?
>
>Nothing troubles me, but I never been a big GA/BC reader so I won't
>100% agree because I'm working on limited knowledge.
Fair enough.
>
>> >True... and my idea of using him to replace Batman if needed wouldn't
>> >help that.
>> There are quite a few characters in comics that are superficially very
>> similar...it's probably best not to throw them into the same film or
>> franchise to point that out.
>
>Actually, throwing superficially similar characters together can point
>out the differences.
>
>Data filled the Spock role in TNG but it wasn't until the Spock
>episodes that the differences (one trying to be human, one trying not
>to be) became clear...
But there was a lot more time to establish each of those characters in
years of previous episodes...you don't have that kind of time in a
film.
>So, putting GA & Batman in the same film could clear up the
>differences... replacing one with the other (like I suggested) could
>make things worse.
>
>> >I liked his solo series but it had no real direction and a film would
>> >be like that too.
>> I'm just not sure the character has enough of a following to carry his
>> own film...and the similarities to Superman could work against him
>> just as with Batman and GA.
>
>Agreed. The beauty of a JLA film is that it establishes these
>characters and gives the ones with not solo-film ability somewhere to
>exist in film. Not every character needs its own film.
I agree...we just disagree on which characters do need a film...and
when...I think that if we get the films for the major characters out
of the way up front, it would make for a better JLA movie...not only
by simplifying the plot, but also be freeing up more time to develop
the lower-tier characters that aren't likely to get their own films
anyway.
>> >That's fun for fans, but it can be annoying if it never happens or has
>> >to be recast, etc.
>> Well, this level of coordination between films would obviously require
>> advance planning to pull off...but it could be great...and, even if
>> they never followed through with having him become the Atom, it would
>> still be a nice nod to the comics.
>
>Yeah, but they say that about the Lizard in Spiderman films... and
>that just annoys me.
Truthfully, it annoyed me too...but only because it was clearly never
meant to go anywhere...but I do like the idea of throwing in things
like that...some with a futre plotline in mind and others just for a
nice little shout out to the hard core fans.
Duggy
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:24:13 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> Right...but there's no reason not to introduce a little commonality in
> the earlier films as part of a build up...just as Marvel is trying to
> do.
I'd rather see characters used or not because they work in a story not
because they add to commonality.
The Marvel thing is tacked on fan-service.
> Again, the audience is clearly there and many if not most of these
> characters are already being developed for films anyway...making a
> little connection between them doesn't seem to add much risk.
Most of them have been in failed development for quite some time.
> Most films don't have this many lead characters...and, of those that
> do, they mostly end up following that Star Trek/X-Men trend where one
> or two characters get most of the spotlight...if most of the
> characters are already introduced in their own films, then they can be
> treated more or less equally in the JLA film.
True.
> >The moment of origin, like in his first story doesn't need much... I
> >think the post-JLA GL needs to explore the Guardians and stuff,
> >though.
> And I think that would work better coming pre-JLA.
I know you do.
> >Because it needs to be done to allow the minor character air time or
> >you get Star Trek & X-Men which are Picard & crew and Wolverine & some
> >other guys... Superman, Batman & some colourfully dressed extras is
> >not the JLA film I want to see but it's the one we'll get if those
> >characters aren't downplayed... and pulling them out of the majority
> >of the film does that. And honesty in advertising and promotion gets
> >around the box-office backlash.
> Again, that wouldn't be necessary if most of the characters were
> already introduced...then we can just see the team come together and
> kick ass...and no fan has to be disappointed over the conspicuous
> absence of the most popular characters.
I think I'd be disappoint in a Trinity & the other guys film even if
the other guys had their own films.
> >It's big but not undoable.
> No...but I don't think it can be done WELL.
I disagree.
> >> and this idea would even require you to
> >> establish Abin Sur in his own right just so he can die...
> >In crazy land.
> Really? So a random alien pops up to join the team and no one is
> supposed to wonder who he is or what the hell he's doing there?
> Sounds like great writing to me.
Well there's already a random alien and a random Amazon Princess.
It's not too hard to bring him in, have Supes explain his role as a
Galactic Policeman to Barry. Done.
> >> all before the invasion even starts...
> >You start with the Invasion of Mars...
> I thought you just said you start with Barry getting his powers...make
> up your mind.
Barry gets his powers, Mars is attacked, Barry tries to create the
League, Mars is defeated, J'Onn flees to Earth, the invaders capture
the heroes, the Invasion of Earth begins.
In a film they cutting back and forward between stories. You may have
seen in in MOST FILMS EVER MADE.
> If Abin dies before the invasion of earth, then when exactly is he
> supposed to be hanging out with Barry and the big three?
Learn to read.
> >What weird definition of "middle" are you using?
> A general term for anything that isn't at the beginning or end of the
> film...sorry for not being more specific...but you should be happy I
> allowed you another opportunity to be snotty.
So from 0:00:01 to 1:59:59?
> >That's about 45 minutes of film, then you have the full on invasion of
> >Earth which could easily be done in an hour. Throw on 10 minutes of
> >establishing the JLA proper at the end and you're done.
> Again, you're glossing over a lot of great moments in those first 45
> minutes and there's really no reason for it.
Which moments are being glossed over?
> >See above. The GL mythos does need its own film... but that can be
> >done after JLA1.
> Or it could come before and we can have a proper origin instead of
> condensing it down to 5 minutes in a group film.
You hated Hal's first appearence in comics, didn't you?
> >Duh. The point is to try to make good films... but even with the best
> >intentions that doesn't happen. I can understand every choice made by
> >the Superman Returns people and can see how they thought it would make
> >a good film... but they made a bad film.
> Well then you have a greater understanding of Superman Returns than I
> do...because I absolutely CANNOT see how anyone thought it would make
> a good film...
Making it 3 not a new 1 stopped the restart thing which dooms series
to 4 films max and allows progression to be made in the story.
Casting Lois young means that you can keep her for longer and she
doesn't end up looking two old after 3 or 4 films.
Casting a CR look alike provides continuity. Cast an unknown to
decrease costs and incrase chances of them staying.
Having Supes off-world for a long time explains the "gap" between
films.
Adding a child adds human drama.
Superman stripped of powers and the cliche plane thing brings it back
to human-condition action...
As I said I understand why those (and many others) were done. I don't
completely agree with them and some I think were completely wrong.
But I can see why they thought they were good ideas. Just like I can
see why you think your ideas are right and will work...
See, I understand things.
> but, regardless of the quality, it wasn't exactly a
> flop.
Only because Warner squeezed every cent they could out of it in
cinemas by keeping it on as long as possible and forcing chains to
keep screens open or they wouldn't get the next blockbuster.
> OK...so why would a poor GL flick kill a JLA move then?
A poor GL film doesn't.
A poor GL film with commonality with the JLA films damages a JLA film.
Imagine if RDjnr appeared in Hulk instead of Incredible Hulk or Dolph
Lundgren's Punisher had to be in The Avengers.
> It's still public recognition. If it doesn't work, leave him out of JLA...
REALLY?
> or use a different GL... or simply a new version of the same one.
Why not just do an unrelated GL film and use a different actor for GL
like we're doing for Batman and screw the fan-wank commonality?
> As long as
> the films mostly stand on their own, there is nothing to force them to
> use that version in the JLA...regardless of the original plan.
So you'd be happy if they ignored, say, The Incredible Hulk film for
The Avengers?
> >If the Flash & GL film fails it kills the JLA film and thus a whole
> >lot of other character's exposure.
> Who? Martian Manhunter?
Martian Manhunter, Green Arrow, Black Canary, The Atom, Hawkman...
> Given the massive popularity of super hero
> films these days, it's only a matter of time before the major
> characters get films of their own anyway...
In the middle of this massive popularity Warner has done... 1
Superman, 2 Batman & a Watchmen film... wow. At this rate they'll be
able to do an LSH film before it's set in the past.
> leaves MM and the Hawks (from your line-up) out in the cold...and it's
> extremely unlikely that either will get films of their own regardless
> of the success of JLA.
Exactly. JLA gives them exposure because they won't get their own
film.
> >Then you don't know Hollywood. New execs often kill previous people's
> >projects because if The Avengers series succeeds than someone else
> >gets the credit. If it fails they get the blame.
> OK...that could just as easily kill any potential sequels or spin-offs
> if you start with a JLA film up front.
Yes, it could. But 1 JLA film is more likely to have spin-offs than
multiplr prequels...
It's simple maths. I hope I don't have to explain that to you.
> >> provided they can keep up the quality in the future
> >> films...we can only hope.
> >Box-Office is not the only things that execs consider.
> Of course not...but money is always the greatest motivating factor.
Personal reputation is much greater.
> >I wish it worked that way. Some good films and TV shows wouldn't have
> >been killed off otherwise...
> Well, we can debate how fickle execs can be all day long...but I
> thought the focus of this discussion was on the best approach for a
> JLA film...even the best project is always at the mercy of the
> execs...your approach or mine.
But yours requires execs to stay with the program for 4 or more films
to get JLA 1. I start with JLA 1 and see where we go from there.
> >Actually, throwing superficially similar characters together can point
> >out the differences.
> >Data filled the Spock role in TNG but it wasn't until the Spock
> >episodes that the differences (one trying to be human, one trying not
> >to be) became clear...
> But there was a lot more time to establish each of those characters in
> years of previous episodes...you don't have that kind of time in a
> film.
True. Plus, there are differences between the JLA Batman and the
other Batmen so that would further complicate things for viewers.
> >Agreed. The beauty of a JLA film is that it establishes these
> >characters and gives the ones with not solo-film ability somewhere to
> >exist in film. Not every character needs its own film.
> I agree...we just disagree on which characters do need a film...and
> when...
When, yes, but who... I don't think so.
I think The Flash & GL need one. Wondy needs one (not nec JLA
related) before JLA.
Aquaman needs a JLA film that can use him, not one that adds him for
numbers.
After JLA, well, if one or more of the characters beyond that catch
the public imagination then go for it, otherwise, I don't really think
any of the others *need* a film. It would be nice if all characters
got one, but some I can't even see how it would work (see previous
Martian Manhunter comments).
> I think that if we get the films for the major characters out
> of the way up front, it would make for a better JLA movie...
It would help one or two of the characters and take a little pressure
off JLA1, but put heaps of pressure on those films.
> not only
> by simplifying the plot, but also be freeing up more time to develop
> the lower-tier characters that aren't likely to get their own films
> anyway.
You seem to have missed, completely, the lessons learnt from the TNG
Star Trek films and The X-Men films. The lower tier characters just
don't get the screen time. As you keep pointing out, the lower tier
characters get their time in TV series if there are any.
The characters of Picard, Data & Riker had major episodes in 7 season
of TNG. They were developed. They had the equivalent of their own
film. Didn't stop them taking screen time from the lower-tier
characters.
A way to do that it to take the obvious focus hogs (Supes, Bats,
Wondy) out of the picture for as much as possible. But we've
discussed that.
> >Yeah, but they say that about the Lizard in Spiderman films... and
> >that just annoys me.
> Truthfully, it annoyed me too...but only because it was clearly never
> meant to go anywhere...but I do like the idea of throwing in things
> like that...some with a futre plotline in mind and others just for a
> nice little shout out to the hard core fans.
If it is done for story reasons, go for it. But I'd rather see Prof
Hamilton in a Superman film than Ray Parker.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> >What about a New Gods film which is basically Orion or Scott vs
> >Darkseid... if successful add more detail of the New Gods after
> >that...
> The characters are too obscure...I just can't see a New Gods film ever
> happening...and, if by chance it did, they would pretty much have to
> be spun off from another franchise like Superman or JLA.
Blade seems pretty obscure...
I just don't see Darkseid working in a Superman or JLA film. I really
don't. I'd love to see him done (right)... but... I can't see a
Superman film or a JLA film pulling it off.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Sep 20, 3:28�pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >What about a New Gods film which is basically Orion or Scott vs
>> >Darkseid... if successful add more detail of the New Gods after
>> >that...
>> The characters are too obscure...I just can't see a New Gods film ever
>> happening...and, if by chance it did, they would pretty much have to
>> be spun off from another franchise like Superman or JLA.
>
>Blade seems pretty obscure...
Blade is pretty obscure...I bet a lot people who loved those movies
don't even know the character came from comics...but that genre is
not...vampires and superheroes have a built-in audience...but the New
Gods aren't even really superheroes and they aren't well known outside
of comics...I just can't see a film version getting the kind of budget
and support to do it right and I don't think it would attract a big
enough audience.
>I just don't see Darkseid working in a Superman or JLA film. I really
>don't. I'd love to see him done (right)... but... I can't see a
>Superman film or a JLA film pulling it off.
And I can't see a New Gods film working out.
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Sep 20, 4:37�pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:24:13 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> >I think putting them together in the JLA makes them the same world...
>> Right...but there's no reason not to introduce a little commonality in
>> the earlier films as part of a build up...just as Marvel is trying to
>> do.
>
>I'd rather see characters used or not because they work in a story not
>because they add to commonality.
Presumably, there would already be an idea for that story in place
before anyone bothered with an approach like this...but, let's face
it, any JLA film is pretty much guaranteed to use the big three, GL,
and Flash...regardless of any prequels or commonality.
>The Marvel thing is tacked on fan-service.
Some of us like "tacked on fan-service"...being that we actually are
fans and all.
>> Again, the audience is clearly there and many if not most of these
>> characters are already being developed for films anyway...making a
>> little connection between them doesn't seem to add much risk.
>
>Most of them have been in failed development for quite some time.
WW, GL, and Flash are all likely to happen eventually.
>> >Because it needs to be done to allow the minor character air time or
>> >you get Star Trek & X-Men which are Picard & crew and Wolverine & some
>> >other guys... Superman, Batman & some colourfully dressed extras is
>> >not the JLA film I want to see but it's the one we'll get if those
>> >characters aren't downplayed... and pulling them out of the majority
>> >of the film does that. �And honesty in advertising and promotion gets
>> >around the box-office backlash.
>> Again, that wouldn't be necessary if most of the characters were
>> already introduced...then we can just see the team come together and
>> kick ass...and no fan has to be disappointed over the conspicuous
>> absence of the most popular characters.
>
>I think I'd be disappoint in a Trinity & the other guys film even if
>the other guys had their own films.
If they approach the film treating the characters as equals, it
doesn't have to come off that way...just because that kind of thing
has happened in Star Trek and X-Men doesn't mean its the only
way...and I would be disappointed with an other guys film where the
Trinity basically just show up to wave at the camera.
>> >It's big but not undoable.
>> No...but I don't think it can be done WELL.
>
>I disagree.
I know you do.
>> >> and this idea would even require you to
>> >> establish Abin Sur in his own right just so he can die...
>> >In crazy land.
>> Really? �So a random alien pops up to join the team and no one is
>> supposed to wonder who he is or what the hell he's doing there?
>> Sounds like great writing to me.
>
>Well there's already a random alien and a random Amazon Princess.
Those characters would already be established...most of the audience
wouldn't have a clue who the hell Abin Sur is.
>It's not too hard to bring him in, have Supes explain his role as a
>Galactic Policeman to Barry. Done.
Part of what makes Hal's origin great is that he doesn't know anything
about Abin Sur or the GLs and he had to learn as he went along...and
the viewers/readers learn right along with him...you lose that element
if you explain all that up front before you even introduce Hal.
>> >> all before the invasion even starts...
>> >You start with the Invasion of Mars...
>> I thought you just said you start with Barry getting his powers...make
>> up your mind.
>
>Barry gets his powers, Mars is attacked, Barry tries to create the
>League, Mars is defeated, J'Onn flees to Earth, the invaders capture
>the heroes, the Invasion of Earth begins.
>
>In a film they cutting back and forward between stories. You may have
>seen in in MOST FILMS EVER MADE.
Most films do not cut back and forth between stories that are so
completely unrelated.
>> If Abin dies before the invasion of earth, then when exactly is he
>> supposed to be hanging out with Barry and the big three?
>
>Learn to read.
Don't get snippy with me just because your plot is full of holes.
>> >What weird definition of "middle" are you using?
>> A general term for anything that isn't at the beginning or end of the
>> film...sorry for not being more specific...but you should be happy I
>> allowed you another opportunity to be snotty.
>
>So from 0:00:01 to 1:59:59?
Sure...if you like.
>> >That's about 45 minutes of film, then you have the full on invasion of
>> >Earth which could easily be done in an hour. �Throw on 10 minutes of
>> >establishing the JLA proper at the end and you're done.
>> Again, you're glossing over a lot of great moments in those first 45
>> minutes and there's really no reason for it.
>
>Which moments are being glossed over?
The origins and the initial formation of the team.
>> >See above. �The GL mythos does need its own film... but that can be
>> >done after JLA1.
>> Or it could come before and we can have a proper origin instead of
>> condensing it down to 5 minutes in a group film.
>
>You hated Hal's first appearence in comics, didn't you?
Well, I'm not a huge fan of Hal at all...but actually do like his
origin...the thing is, even though the initial origin moment is just
that...we need more time to establish Hal's character before that
moment and to see him figuring things out after he gets the ring...a
group film isn't going to do that unless you pull a "New Frontier" and
make him the focus of the story...and then we're entering Star
Trek/X-Men territory again.
>> >Duh. �The point is to try to make good films... but even with the best
>> >intentions that doesn't happen. �I can understand every choice made by
>> >the Superman Returns people and can see how they thought it would make
>> >a good film... but they made a bad film.
>> Well then you have a greater understanding of Superman Returns than I
>> do...because I absolutely CANNOT see how anyone thought it would make
>> a good film...
>
>Making it 3 not a new 1 stopped the restart thing which dooms series
>to 4 films max and allows progression to be made in the story.
How? By confusing the hell out of viewers who are trying to figure
out how it fits in with the two films that were a part of that
original film series that they chose to totally ignore? And skipping
ahead several years isn't exactly story progression....it's skipping
over the story progression.
>Casting Lois young means that you can keep her for longer and she
>doesn't end up looking two old after 3 or 4 films.
That part I don't have a problem with...but 3 or 4 films is still
usually going to be the upper limit because the the people involved
with the films get bored and want to move on to other things.
>Casting a CR look alike provides continuity. Cast an unknown to
>decrease costs and incrase chances of them staying.
How does it provide continuity? Do you really think anyone thought it
actually was CR up on that screen? But I don't have a problem with
casting an unknown.
>Having Supes off-world for a long time explains the "gap" between
>films.
But makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
>Adding a child adds human drama.
And totally pisses all over the source material...not to mention
making Superman look like an ass hole for knocking up Lois, wiping her
memory so she doesn't even know he did it, and heading for deep space.
>Superman stripped of powers and the cliche plane thing brings it back
>to human-condition action...
But it is just that...a cliche...most definitely poor storytelling.
>As I said I understand why those (and many others) were done. I don't
>completely agree with them and some I think were completely wrong.
>But I can see why they thought they were good ideas. Just like I can
>see why you think your ideas are right and will work...
>
>See, I understand things.
I'm very happy for you.
>> but, regardless of the quality, it wasn't exactly a
>> flop.
>
>Only because Warner squeezed every cent they could out of it in
>cinemas by keeping it on as long as possible and forcing chains to
>keep screens open or they wouldn't get the next blockbuster.
Even so.
>> OK...so why would a poor GL flick kill a JLA move then?
>
>A poor GL film doesn't.
>
>A poor GL film with commonality with the JLA films damages a JLA film.
Not if it's only a minor connection that can be easily ignored or
re-worked.
>Imagine if RDjnr appeared in Hulk instead of Incredible Hulk or Dolph
>Lundgren's Punisher had to be in The Avengers.
Again, establishing the films as taking place in the same world
doesn't have to lock them in to an Avengers film.
>>�It's still public recognition. �If it doesn't work, leave him out of JLA...
>
>REALLY?
>
>> or use a different GL... or simply a new version of the same one.
>
>Why not just do an unrelated GL film and use a different actor for GL
>like we're doing for Batman and screw the fan-wank commonality?
You do realize that the very concept of the JLA is based on this
"fan-wank commonality" don't you? Or would you rather they scrap the
DCU and just have each character exist in their own little world?
>> �As long as
>> the films mostly stand on their own, there is nothing to force them to
>> use that version in the JLA...regardless of the original plan.
>
>So you'd be happy if they ignored, say, The Incredible Hulk film for
>The Avengers?
It wouldn't bother me if they left the Hulk out of the Avengers...for
one thing, I always thought having the Hulk on the team was kind of
iffy anyway...I don't really see why it would need to be ignored but
it's not a dealbreaker either.
>> leaves MM and the Hawks (from your line-up) out in the cold...and it's
>> extremely unlikely that either will get films of their own regardless
>> of the success of JLA.
>
>Exactly. JLA gives them exposure because they won't get their own
>film.
And what good is that exposure if the film sucks?
>> >Then you don't know Hollywood. �New execs often kill previous people's
>> >projects because if The Avengers series succeeds than someone else
>> >gets the credit. �If it fails they get the blame.
>> OK...that could just as easily kill any potential sequels or spin-offs
>> if you start with a JLA film up front.
>
>Yes, it could. But 1 JLA film is more likely to have spin-offs than
>multiplr prequels...
I disagree...solo films are far less complicated and, so far, quite a
bit more common...they are more likely to get made and easier to make
well...and, while these films would technically be prequels, they
would stand on their own just fine...just like Iron Man and Incredible
Hulk.
>It's simple maths. I hope I don't have to explain that to you.
No...but thanks for the condescension all the same.
>> >I wish it worked that way. �Some good films and TV shows wouldn't have
>> >been killed off otherwise...
>> Well, we can debate how fickle execs can be all day long...but I
>> thought the focus of this discussion was on the best approach for a
>> JLA film...even the best project is always at the mercy of the
>> execs...your approach or mine.
>
>But yours requires execs to stay with the program for 4 or more films
>to get JLA 1. I start with JLA 1 and see where we go from there.
Yes you do...but I don't think it would go anywhere from there...we
can't control the execs so I'd prefer to focus on what works
creatively and commercially...which is why I prefer my approach
>> >Agreed. �The beauty of a JLA film is that it establishes these
>> >characters and gives the ones with not solo-film ability somewhere to
>> >exist in film. �Not every character needs its own film.
>> I agree...we just disagree on which characters do need a film...and
>> when...
>
>When, yes, but who... I don't think so.
Fair enough.
>> I think that if we get the films for the major characters out
>> of the way up front, it would make for a better JLA movie...
>
>It would help one or two of the characters and take a little pressure
>off JLA1, but put heaps of pressure on those films.
And I'm OK with that...I believe they can be done well and would like
to see it happen...I don't think it's likely to happen my way but I
think it's the only we'll ever get a satisfying JLA film...which is
why I suggested earlier that it may be best to just stick to JLA
animated projects.
>> not only
>> by simplifying the plot, but also be freeing up more time to develop
>> the lower-tier characters that aren't likely to get their own films
>> anyway.
>
>You seem to have missed, completely, the lessons learnt from the TNG
>Star Trek films and The X-Men films. The lower tier characters just
>don't get the screen time. As you keep pointing out, the lower tier
>characters get their time in TV series if there are any.
Just because they haven't doesn't mean they can't.
>The characters of Picard, Data & Riker had major episodes in 7 season
>of TNG. They were developed. They had the equivalent of their own
>film. Didn't stop them taking screen time from the lower-tier
>characters.
>
>A way to do that it to take the obvious focus hogs (Supes, Bats,
>Wondy) out of the picture for as much as possible. But we've
>discussed that.
Yes we have.
>> >Yeah, but they say that about the Lizard in Spiderman films... and
>> >that just annoys me.
>> Truthfully, it annoyed me too...but only because it was clearly never
>> meant to go anywhere...but I do like the idea of throwing in things
>> like that...some with a futre plotline in mind and others just for a
>> nice little shout out to the hard core fans.
>
>If it is done for story reasons, go for it. But I'd rather see Prof
>Hamilton in a Superman film than Ray Parker.
I'm ok with that...but it would still be a "fan-wank" and we all know
how you feel about those.
Duggy
> Blade is pretty obscure...I bet a lot people who loved those movies
> don't even know the character came from comics...but that genre is
> not...vampires and superheroes have a built-in audience...but the New
> Gods aren't even really superheroes and they aren't well known outside
> of comics...I just can't see a film version getting the kind of budget
> and support to do it right and I don't think it would attract a big
> enough audience.
I have said that all along.
> >I just don't see Darkseid working in a Superman or JLA film. I really
> >don't. I'd love to see him done (right)... but... I can't see a
> >Superman film or a JLA film pulling it off.
> And I can't see a New Gods film working out.
Financially, yeah.
Creatively, I can't really see Darkseid in Superman or JLA working,
but I think New Gods would work... but it would never find the market.
Just like JMS isn't going to make anymore Babylon 5 unless he gets big
money for a big screen film. Which is fine, but... even as a big
Babylon 5 fan and wanting to see a big screen film I just can't see it
making the money back so I can't see him getting the money.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Sep 21, 3:18�am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> Blade is pretty obscure...I bet a lot people who loved those movies
>> don't even know the character came from comics...but that genre is
>> not...vampires and superheroes have a built-in audience...but the New
>> Gods aren't even really superheroes and they aren't well known outside
>> of comics...I just can't see a film version getting the kind of budget
>> and support to do it right and I don't think it would attract a big
>> enough audience.
>
>I have said that all along.
>
>> >I just don't see Darkseid working in a Superman or JLA film. �I really
>> >don't. �I'd love to see him done (right)... but... I can't see a
>> >Superman film or a JLA film pulling it off.
>> And I can't see a New Gods film working out.
>
>Financially, yeah.
>
>Creatively, I can't really see Darkseid in Superman or JLA working,
>but I think New Gods would work... but it would never find the market.
To each his own...personally, I don't even think a New Gods flick
would work creatively...but I've never really cared for the New Gods
as a whole...I like Darkseid as achvillain for the DCU and I like
Scott, Barda, and Orion...but generally only in stories that don't
have anything to do with the New Gods mythology...I liked Scott and
Barda in Justice League International...I liked Barda and Orion in
Morrison's JLA...and I liked Barda in Birds of Prey...the only story I
ever liked that really focused on the New Gods was Cosmic
Odyssey...and I know a lot of others around here didn't care for that
one.
>
>Just like JMS isn't going to make anymore Babylon 5 unless he gets big
>money for a big screen film. Which is fine, but... even as a big
>Babylon 5 fan and wanting to see a big screen film I just can't see it
>making the money back so I can't see him getting the money.
It would have to be a direct to DVD kind of thing...like what they've
been doing with Stargate recently...but that wouldn't be big money so
it would likely never happen.
Duggy
> >> >Duh. The point is to try to make good films... but even with the best
> >> >intentions that doesn't happen. I can understand every choice made by
> >> >the Superman Returns people and can see how they thought it would make
> >> >a good film... but they made a bad film.
> >> Well then you have a greater understanding of Superman Returns than I
> >> do...because I absolutely CANNOT see how anyone thought it would make
> >> a good film...
> >Making it 3 not a new 1 stopped the restart thing which dooms series
> >to 4 films max and allows progression to be made in the story.
> How? By confusing the hell out of viewers who are trying to figure
> out how it fits in with the two films that were a part of that
> original film series that they chose to totally ignore? And skipping
> ahead several years isn't exactly story progression....it's skipping
> over the story progression.
I'm not saying that they did it well, I'm saying that a lot of these
series die around film 4 and that that means that there isn't really
time for a lot of progression. So, say, the Spiderman films stopped
after 4 and ten years later they wanted to do another one... part of
me would want to see "five" or "a new series assuming people knew the
origin and set a couple of years later" rather than a new "One". Not
the say that there isn't room to do that, but I do understand the
thinking behind it.
Ignoring 3 & 4 in the Superman series makes sense because they
weakened the series. And having an imaginary version of #2 works
story-wise. Now, I wouldn't do those things, but I can see why they
thought it was a good idea.
> >Casting Lois young means that you can keep her for longer and she
> >doesn't end up looking two old after 3 or 4 films.
> That part I don't have a problem with...
I do, because she was too young and even younger looking with a child
that was played by a kid older than the kid in the story (standard
stuff for film) so instead of looking like his mother she looked like
his big sister which added an extra level of creepy to the whole
thing.
> but 3 or 4 films is still
> usually going to be the upper limit because the the people involved
> with the films get bored and want to move on to other things.
Yeah, and they were trying to combat that in a couple of ways. Simple
recasting would do they job but they were trying to think ahead.
> >Casting a CR look alike provides continuity. Cast an unknown to
> >decrease costs and incrase chances of them staying.
> How does it provide continuity? Do you really think anyone thought it
> actually was CR up on that screen? But I don't have a problem with
> casting an unknown.
I have a problem with casting an unknown who can't act...
And if the choice was because he looked like CR (and BS says it was)
then it was a mistake. I can understand why, but then the rest of the
cast weren't look alikes so it does seem pointless.
I wish they hadn't done it but I can understand why.
> >Having Supes off-world for a long time explains the "gap" between
> >films.
> But makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Yeah. Very flawed, but "there's been a five year gap between films"
quickly covers the gap (even though it is a lot more) rather than have
people be "confused" by whether it was a week later or twenty years.
> >Adding a child adds human drama.
> And totally pisses all over the source material...not to mention
> making Superman look like an ass hole for knocking up Lois, wiping her
> memory so she doesn't even know he did it, and heading for deep space.
Agreed 100%. However, human drama is something the Superman writers
always grapple with. This was a massively failed attempt to do just
that.
> >Superman stripped of powers and the cliche plane thing brings it back
> >to human-condition action...
> But it is just that...a cliche...most definitely poor storytelling.
I know, I outwardly groaned at that. People looked at me in the
cinema. It was horrid. It was bad Indy or Bond. This is Superman it
shouldn't have happened, but they wanted to add a sense of human
danger to Superman... which makes sense, but was one of the things
they did badly wrong.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> >because they add to commonality.
> Presumably, there would already be an idea for that story in place
> before anyone bothered with an approach like this...
How much of a JLA plot would you develop before you started Flash &
GL?
I mean, would you have a rough script for JLA ready and tailor the
prequels to work for that or would you do the prequels with naught by
the idea of "a JLA film later"?
>but, let's face
> it, any JLA film is pretty much guaranteed to use the big three, GL,
> and Flash...regardless of any prequels or commonality.
Yes.
> >The Marvel thing is tacked on fan-service.
> Some of us like "tacked on fan-service"...being that we actually are
> fans and all.
I like a film to work as a film. If Fury had been the Agent instead
of that FBI guy from The West Wing or New Adventures of Old Christine
I think it would have worked better... or if that guy reported to him
at some point. But the "Oh, by the way I'm Nick Fury" thing doesn't
work as part of the film. If it was well intergrated, fine, but it
was just shoved in which is why it didn't work for me.
> >Most of them have been in failed development for quite some time.
> WW, GL, and Flash are all likely to happen eventually.
I think one of them will get made in the next 5 years... but that the
others will rest on the success of that one...
Unless the "DC Entertainment" gets some real money and power behind it
and gets things moving.
Then again, some of the stalled attempts I've been glad didn't get
made.
> >I think I'd be disappoint in a Trinity & the other guys film even if
> >the other guys had their own films.
> If they approach the film treating the characters as equals, it
> doesn't have to come off that way...
But they won't. Superman, Batman & Wonder Woman are the big draws so
they'll get the most attension.
> just because that kind of thing
> has happened in Star Trek and X-Men doesn't mean its the only
> way...
But it is the Hollywood way. They do the thing that will make the
most money, not that works best.
> and I would be disappointed with an other guys film where the
> Trinity basically just show up to wave at the camera.
Many would.
> Part of what makes Hal's origin great is that he doesn't know anything
> about Abin Sur or the GLs and he had to learn as he went along...and
> the viewers/readers learn right along with him...you lose that element
> if you explain all that up front before you even introduce Hal.
You don't explain all that, you just point vaguely to it.
> >Barry gets his powers, Mars is attacked, Barry tries to create the
> >League, Mars is defeated, J'Onn flees to Earth, the invaders capture
> >the heroes, the Invasion of Earth begins.
> >In a film they cutting back and forward between stories. You may have
> >seen in in MOST FILMS EVER MADE.
> Most films do not cut back and forth between stories that are so
> completely unrelated.
Wow, don't what many films, huh?
> >> >What weird definition of "middle" are you using?
> >> A general term for anything that isn't at the beginning or end of the
> >> film...sorry for not being more specific...but you should be happy I
> >> allowed you another opportunity to be snotty.
> >So from 0:00:01 to 1:59:59?
> Sure...if you like.
That's a weird definition of middle.
> >Which moments are being glossed over?
> The origins and the initial formation of the team.
One of the origins and the formation is the point of the entire film.
> Well, I'm not a huge fan of Hal at all...but actually do like his
> origin...the thing is, even though the initial origin moment is just
> that...we need more time to establish Hal's character before that
> moment and to see him figuring things out after he gets the ring...a
> group film isn't going to do that unless you pull a "New Frontier" and
> make him the focus of the story...and then we're entering Star
> Trek/X-Men territory again.
You can do the figuring out the ring thing in the story without
focusing on him, easy.
> >> OK...so why would a poor GL flick kill a JLA move then?
> >A poor GL film doesn't.
> >A poor GL film with commonality with the JLA films damages a JLA film.
> Not if it's only a minor connection that can be easily ignored or
> re-worked.
You mean like recasting Harvey Dent in the previous Batmans... it made
the previous fan-service more annoying.
> >Imagine if RDjnr appeared in Hulk instead of Incredible Hulk or Dolph
> >Lundgren's Punisher had to be in The Avengers.
> Again, establishing the films as taking place in the same world
> doesn't have to lock them in to an Avengers film.
So you'd leave out an Avenger if they had a stinker film?
> >> or use a different GL... or simply a new version of the same one.
> >Why not just do an unrelated GL film and use a different actor for GL
> >like we're doing for Batman and screw the fan-wank commonality?
> You do realize that the very concept of the JLA is based on this
> "fan-wank commonality" don't you? Or would you rather they scrap the
> DCU and just have each character exist in their own little world?
No, the JLA is based on established character working together.
Fan-wank commonality would be page 22 of the latest issue of Batman
have him saying "I have to make a few calls" with the JLA heads on the
Bat-monitors and Batman appearing on page 22 of Superman, Wondy, GL,
etc to advertise next months JLA #1.
Although I would be happy if they stopped adding existing universes to
New Earth and gave them their own world to exist on.
> >So you'd be happy if they ignored, say, The Incredible Hulk film for
> >The Avengers?
> It wouldn't bother me if they left the Hulk out of the Avengers...for
> one thing, I always thought having the Hulk on the team was kind of
> iffy anyway...I don't really see why it would need to be ignored but
> it's not a dealbreaker either.
Never a big Avengers person so I can't comment but Hulk did always
seem out of place to me... even the films don't seem to be setting him
up to work well with The Avengers.
> >Exactly. JLA gives them exposure because they won't get their own
> >film.
> And what good is that exposure if the film sucks?
Worked for The Hulk.
Worked for EleKtra.
> >Yes, it could. But 1 JLA film is more likely to have spin-offs than
> >multiplr prequels...
> I disagree...solo films are far less complicated and, so far, quite a
> bit more common...they are more likely to get made and easier to make
> well...and, while these films would technically be prequels, they
> would stand on their own just fine...just like Iron Man and Incredible
> Hulk.
What I'm saying is that all things being equal, if say Disney scrapped
The Avengers universe today you'd never have The Avengers, whereas if
you'd started with The Avengers you'd have had that film and a spin-
off that than just two prequels.
> >But yours requires execs to stay with the program for 4 or more films
> >to get JLA 1. I start with JLA 1 and see where we go from there.
> Yes you do...but I don't think it would go anywhere from there...we
> can't control the execs so I'd prefer to focus on what works
> creatively and commercially...which is why I prefer my approach
Yours works better commercially. Mine works better creatively.
> And I'm OK with that...I believe they can be done well and would like
> to see it happen...I don't think it's likely to happen my way but I
> think it's the only we'll ever get a satisfying JLA film...which is
> why I suggested earlier that it may be best to just stick to JLA
> animated projects.
I like/hate the animated projects at the moment. It gives a better
chance to tell the best stories, it gives a chance to play with styles
and casting that best fit the particular story... but then there's no
sense of continuity either... but there's no way to have everything.
> Just because they haven't doesn't mean they can't.
Hollywood can't.
> >A way to do that it to take the obvious focus hogs (Supes, Bats,
> >Wondy) out of the picture for as much as possible. But we've
> >discussed that.
> Yes we have.
I thought so.
> >If it is done for story reasons, go for it. But I'd rather see Prof
> >Hamilton in a Superman film than Ray Parker.
> I'm ok with that...but it would still be a "fan-wank" and we all know
> how you feel about those.
I wouldn't want to see Prof Hamilton forced into a Superman film.
That would be fan-wank.
But if they needed a scientist I'd rather see Prof Hamilton in a
Superman film that Ray Parker... but only if Prof worked. I certainly
wouldn't want to see Ray forced in there just so Ray could appear in a
much later JLA film or to link the films.
===
= DUG.
===
Jason Todd
> all those lame villains from the team's history can be ignored. The
> downside is you have to justify to the largely ignorant masses why a
> team of Superman and Green Lantern even needs anybody else, and you
> have to have the script to back that up, without delving into
> convuluted DCU history. No easy task.
>
>
Well hell, let's face it that's a problem in the comics as well --
What need is there for Superman to be in the JLA? Strength, super-
speed, long range heat vision, reporter's skills -- and then there's
the fact he can get his hands on advanced technology from STAR Labs or
his own Fortress. Except for Zatanna and the Atom, the rest of the
league is superflous where he's concerned.
But what fun would that be? You might as well put the Joker in the
electric chair and flip the switch!
Jason Todd
>
> The characters are too obscure...I just can't see a New Gods film ever
> happening...and, if by chance it did, they would pretty much have to
> be spun off from another franchise like Superman or JLA.
You can't get more obscure than "Men In Black"....
:)
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>I'm not saying that they did it well, I'm saying that a lot of these
>series die around film 4 and that that means that there isn't really
>time for a lot of progression. So, say, the Spiderman films stopped
>after 4 and ten years later they wanted to do another one... part of
>me would want to see "five" or "a new series assuming people knew the
>origin and set a couple of years later" rather than a new "One". Not
>the say that there isn't room to do that, but I do understand the
>thinking behind it.
Not me...I'm of the opinion that these characters...particularly the
ones that have been around since the Golden Age...need an update from
time to time...but, if you do want to try to force a continuiation to
a series that ended 15 years earlier, you kind of need to stick with
all of it instead of just the random parts you like...otherwise, it's
just best to start over.
>Ignoring 3 & 4 in the Superman series makes sense because they
>weakened the series. And having an imaginary version of #2 works
>story-wise. Now, I wouldn't do those things, but I can see why they
>thought it was a good idea.
It doesn't make sense because there is no way to explain any of it to
the fans...it's just seriously bad writing.
>> >Casting Lois young means that you can keep her for longer and she
>> >doesn't end up looking two old after 3 or 4 films.
>> That part I don't have a problem with...
>
>I do, because she was too young and even younger looking with a child
>that was played by a kid older than the kid in the story (standard
>stuff for film) so instead of looking like his mother she looked like
>his big sister which added an extra level of creepy to the whole
>thing.
Well, the kid was a bad idea across the board...but, in theory, the
idea of casting younger isn't a bad one.
>> but 3 or 4 films is still
>> usually going to be the upper limit because the the people involved
>> with the films get bored and want to move on to other things.
>
>Yeah, and they were trying to combat that in a couple of ways. Simple
>recasting would do they job but they were trying to think ahead.
It was a terrible idea to try to continue that series after so much
time has gone by...Superman really needed a relaunch...not a
half-assed retread.
>> >Casting a CR look alike provides continuity. �Cast an unknown to
>> >decrease costs and incrase chances of them staying.
>> How does it provide continuity? �Do you really think anyone thought it
>> actually was CR up on that screen? �But I don't have a problem with
>> casting an unknown.
>
>I have a problem with casting an unknown who can't act...
Well, yeah, there is that.
>And if the choice was because he looked like CR (and BS says it was)
>then it was a mistake. I can understand why, but then the rest of the
>cast weren't look alikes so it does seem pointless.
>
>I wish they hadn't done it but I can understand why.
You misunderstand me...I understand why they did these things...I just
don't understand how they thought any of it was a good idea.
>> >Having Supes off-world for a long time explains the "gap" between
>> >films.
>> But makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
>
>Yeah. Very flawed, but "there's been a five year gap between films"
>quickly covers the gap (even though it is a lot more) rather than have
>people be "confused" by whether it was a week later or twenty years.
And yet they still confused people by ignoring two films and
continuiing from a version of one that didn't actually exist.
>> >Adding a child adds human drama.
>> And totally pisses all over the source material...not to mention
>> making Superman look like an ass hole for knocking up Lois, wiping her
>> memory so she doesn't even know he did it, and heading for deep space.
>
>Agreed 100%. However, human drama is something the Superman writers
>always grapple with. This was a massively failed attempt to do just
>that.
Again, I get wanting to add drama...but how they thought this was a
good way to do it is beyond me.
>> >Superman stripped of powers and the cliche plane thing brings it back
>> >to human-condition action...
>> But it is just that...a cliche...most definitely poor storytelling.
>
>I know, I outwardly groaned at that. People looked at me in the
>cinema. It was horrid. It was bad Indy or Bond. This is Superman it
>shouldn't have happened, but they wanted to add a sense of human
>danger to Superman... which makes sense, but was one of the things
>they did badly wrong.
How about adding a sense of danger by actually giving a Superman a
threat worthy of the character for once (especially now that the
special effects have reached the point where they can do it well)
instead to just falling back on Kryptonite over and over and
over...give him a super villain, damn it.
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Sep 21, 4:32�am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >I'd rather see characters used or not because they work in a story not
>> >because they add to commonality.
>> Presumably, there would already be an idea for that story in place
>> before anyone bothered with an approach like this...
>
>How much of a JLA plot would you develop before you started Flash &
>GL?
>
>I mean, would you have a rough script for JLA ready and tailor the
>prequels to work for that or would you do the prequels with naught by
>the idea of "a JLA film later"?
I would say a basic outline of the plot for JLA would be enough going
into developing the prequels...enough that the prequel stories don't
get in the way or contradict what you want for JLA but vague enough to
leave some wiggle room...the films should mostly stand their own
anyway with just a few points of commonality to tie them together
going into JLA.
>
>>but, let's face
>> it, any JLA film is pretty much guaranteed to use the big three, GL,
>> and Flash...regardless of any prequels or commonality.
>
>Yes.
>
>> >The Marvel thing is tacked on fan-service.
>> Some of us like "tacked on fan-service"...being that we actually are
>> fans and all.
>
>I like a film to work as a film. If Fury had been the Agent instead
>of that FBI guy from The West Wing or New Adventures of Old Christine
>I think it would have worked better... or if that guy reported to him
>at some point. But the "Oh, by the way I'm Nick Fury" thing doesn't
>work as part of the film. If it was well intergrated, fine, but it
>was just shoved in which is why it didn't work for me.
Well, that's a different discussion all together...I'm not saying this
was the best way to tie the films together but I like the general idea
behind it...the specifics should be dictated by the stories
themselves...both the current story and the future story you're
looking to set up.
That said, I was ok with that little Fury cameo as is...it basically
gives the viewer a choice...stop watching when the credits start
rolling if you want a totally independent story or stay tuned if you
want more...also, tossing a scene in after the credits is commonplace
for these films now and it's generally meant as a teaser for future
films...this seems to fit the bill.
>
>> >Most of them have been in failed development for quite some time.
>> WW, GL, and Flash are all likely to happen eventually.
>
>I think one of them will get made in the next 5 years... but that the
>others will rest on the success of that one...
>
>Unless the "DC Entertainment" gets some real money and power behind it
>and gets things moving.
I would think they would feel some pressure to keep up with what
Marvel is doing.
>Then again, some of the stalled attempts I've been glad didn't get
>made.
>
>> >I think I'd be disappoint in a Trinity & the other guys film even if
>> >the other guys had their own films.
>> If they approach the film treating the characters as equals, it
>> doesn't have to come off that way...
>
>But they won't. Superman, Batman & Wonder Woman are the big draws so
>they'll get the most attension.
That all depends on the script and filmmaker...a good JLA film would
give every member the chance to shine...I'm not saying it would be
easy to balance but I refuse to believe it can't be done.
Furthermore, with my approach, there would be a vested interest in
allowing the other characters their moments in the sun in order to
promote their own films and what not.
>> just because that kind of thing
>> has happened in Star Trek and X-Men doesn't mean its the only
>> way...
>
>But it is the Hollywood way. They do the thing that will make the
>most money, not that works best.
And having the big three in there in a significant role would cover
that...but it doesn't dictate that they take over the film.
>> and I would be disappointed with an other guys film where the
>> Trinity basically just show up to wave at the camera.
>
>Many would.
>
>> Part of what makes Hal's origin great is that he doesn't know anything
>> about Abin Sur or the GLs and he had to learn as he went along...and
>> the viewers/readers learn right along with him...you lose that element
>> if you explain all that up front before you even introduce Hal.
>
>You don't explain all that, you just point vaguely to it.
If you beef up Abin Sur's role in the story but don't actually let the
viewers know anything about him, it could alienate them...I know it
would annoy the hell out of me if I didn't already know who he was.
>> >Barry gets his powers, Mars is attacked, Barry tries to create the
>> >League, Mars is defeated, J'Onn flees to Earth, the invaders capture
>> >the heroes, the Invasion of Earth begins.
>
>> >In a film they cutting back and forward between stories. �You may have
>> >seen in in MOST FILMS EVER MADE.
>
>> Most films do not cut back and forth between stories that are so
>> completely unrelated.
>
>Wow, don't what many films, huh?
I assume you mean "watch"...and, yes, I do watch a lot of films...and,
generally, the plotlines are not so drastically different that they
don't eventually come together...at least in the GOOD films...you're
idea has unrelated storylines going on that are entirely independent
from the main plot of the movie and other storylines that just barely
tie in...and all of it is horribly rushed to fit into a single film.
>> >> >What weird definition of "middle" are you using?
>> >> A general term for anything that isn't at the beginning or end of the
>> >> film...sorry for not being more specific...but you should be happy I
>> >> allowed you another opportunity to be snotty.
>> >So from 0:00:01 to 1:59:59?
>> Sure...if you like.
>
>That's a weird definition of middle.
It certainly would be if that's what I meant.
>> >Which moments are being glossed over?
>> The origins and the initial formation of the team.
>
>One of the origins and the formation is the point of the entire film.
I guess it's just lost in translation then.
>> Well, I'm not a huge fan of Hal at all...but actually do like his
>> origin...the thing is, even though the initial origin moment is just
>> that...we need more time to establish Hal's character before that
>> moment and to see him figuring things out after he gets the ring...a
>> group film isn't going to do that unless you pull a "New Frontier" and
>> make him the focus of the story...and then we're entering Star
>> Trek/X-Men territory again.
>
>You can do the figuring out the ring thing in the story without
>focusing on him, easy.
I don't think you can...because scenes like that would be the first
thing cut out of the movie for time purposes.
>> >> OK...so why would a poor GL flick kill a JLA move then?
>> >A poor GL film doesn't.
>> >A poor GL film with commonality with the JLA films damages a JLA film.
>> Not if it's only a minor connection that can be easily ignored or
>> re-worked.
>
>You mean like recasting Harvey Dent in the previous Batmans... it made
>the previous fan-service more annoying.
That one is a little more of an egregious change than I had in
mind...I wouldn't have introduced Harvey without locking him down for
the Two-Face storyline...and, if a change had to be made, I would
simply scrap the Two-Face plotline all together.
As far as the points of commonality or connectivity between these
films, I would keep it a little more subtle than that...for instance,
if I were going to do a Thanagarian invasion of earth as a JLA movie,
I might introduce the Thanagarians as a race in the earlier GL
film...perhaps even throw in the Thanagarian GL from the comics to set
it up...not as a major plot point but just in the course of the
story...obviously, other GLs should show up anyway so why not, right?
>
>> >Imagine if RDjnr appeared in Hulk instead of Incredible Hulk or Dolph
>> >Lundgren's Punisher had to be in The Avengers.
>> Again, establishing the films as taking place in the same world
>> doesn't have to lock them in to an Avengers film.
>
>So you'd leave out an Avenger if they had a stinker film?
Well, an Avengers film is a different animal than a JLA film...with
the JLA, there several characters (the big three, Flash, GL) that you
would pretty much HAVE to use in the film...with Avengers, you have a
lot more options...there are really only a couple of characters you
would be stuck with (Cap and Iron Man, most likely) and there are many
possible choices to fill out the roster...Iron Man is already well
established so he's a no-brainer...it does place some pressure on the
Cap film though...but no one else is really irreplacable.
My idea for that (and I think it's more or less what they are planning
to do) is make a Cap film set in WWII and then have the others
discover Cap on ice (or some variation) in the Avengers film.
Certainly, more care would have to be taken in doing something like
this with the JLA to keep the prequels from bombing...but it's
doable...and a lackluster film wouldn't necessarily prevent that
character from going into the JLA...it would have to depend on the
circumstances.
And, if worse comes to worse, there is nothing to prevent them from
killing the connected prequel idea and just moving ahead with an
unrelated JLA film...I don't think it would turn out very well but
it's certainly an option.
>> >> or use a different GL... or simply a new version of the same one.
>> >Why not just do an unrelated GL film and use a different actor for GL
>> >like we're doing for Batman and screw the fan-wank commonality?
>> You do realize that the very concept of the JLA is based on this
>> "fan-wank commonality" don't you? �Or would you rather they scrap the
>> DCU and just have each character exist in their own little world?
>
>No, the JLA is based on established character working together.
>Fan-wank commonality would be page 22 of the latest issue of Batman
>have him saying "I have to make a few calls" with the JLA heads on the
>Bat-monitors and Batman appearing on page 22 of Superman, Wondy, GL,
>etc to advertise next months JLA #1.
No, the JLA is based on DC saying "Hey, we have all these popular
characters in their own books...why don't throw them all together in
one and really cash in."
But I agree with you that the minor little things like that can be
tedious in the comics...but the comics do full-on team-ups all the
time...this would be totally new territory for the films...a little
"fan-wank" wouldn't be a bad thing.
>Although I would be happy if they stopped adding existing universes to
>New Earth and gave them their own world to exist on.
Agreed.
>> >So you'd be happy if they ignored, say, The Incredible Hulk film for
>> >The Avengers?
>> It wouldn't bother me if they left the Hulk out of the Avengers...for
>> one thing, I always thought having the Hulk on the team was kind of
>> iffy anyway...I don't really see why it would need to be ignored but
>> it's not a dealbreaker either.
>
>Never a big Avengers person so I can't comment but Hulk did always
>seem out of place to me... even the films don't seem to be setting him
>up to work well with The Avengers.
More than likely, he wouldn't be a full-on member of the team so much
as a victim of circumstance who gets drawn into the plot.
In the comics, Hulk is technically an original Avenger but that only
lasted a couple issues and then he was gone...and he's never done more
than a guest appearance since.
>> >Exactly. �JLA gives them exposure because they won't get their own
>> >film.
>> And what good is that exposure if the film sucks?
>
>Worked for The Hulk.
How so? The character was already a popular and recognizable
character...which is the only reason the second film
happened...because they wanted it done right.
>Worked for EleKtra.
Yes, one bad film spawned a worse one...not really the kind of
exposure I'd wish on any character I liked.
>> >Yes, it could. �But 1 JLA film is more likely to have spin-offs than
>> >multiplr prequels...
>> I disagree...solo films are far less complicated and, so far, quite a
>> bit more common...they are more likely to get made and easier to make
>> well...and, while these films would technically be prequels, they
>> would stand on their own just fine...just like Iron Man and Incredible
>> Hulk.
>
>What I'm saying is that all things being equal, if say Disney scrapped
>The Avengers universe today you'd never have The Avengers, whereas if
>you'd started with The Avengers you'd have had that film and a spin-
>off that than just two prequels.
No, if Disney scrapped the Avengers "Universe," there would be nothing
preventing them from going ahead with an unrelated and independent
Avengers film down the line...it might delay it a while but it's a
popular comic property so there will certainly still be
interest...that said, I'd much rather have two GOOD prequels than one
BAD Avengers film.
>> >But yours requires execs to stay with the program for 4 or more films
>> >to get JLA 1. �I start with JLA 1 and see where we go from there.
>> Yes you do...but I don't think it would go anywhere from there...we
>> can't control the execs so I'd prefer to focus on what works
>> creatively and commercially...which is why I prefer my approach
>
>Yours works better commercially. Mine works better creatively.
And this is the central point we disagree on...I think mine works much
better commercially AND creatively...I think we're pretty much at an
impasse here.
>> And I'm OK with that...I believe they can be done well and would like
>> to see it happen...I don't think it's likely to happen my way but I
>> think it's the only we'll ever get a satisfying JLA film...which is
>> why I suggested earlier that it may be best to just stick to JLA
>> animated projects.
>
>I like/hate the animated projects at the moment. It gives a better
>chance to tell the best stories, it gives a chance to play with styles
>and casting that best fit the particular story... but then there's no
>sense of continuity either
Which is why I liked it better when they stuck to the
Batman/Superman/Justice League TAS continuity rather than all these
unrelated one-shot films...most of which have not impressed me.
... but there's no way to have everything.
True.
>
>> Just because they haven't doesn't mean they can't.
>
>Hollywood can't.
I don't accept that...there was a time when Hollywood wouldn't come
within a mile of a superhero property...trends and practices change.
Duggy
> Not me...I'm of the opinion that these characters...particularly the
> ones that have been around since the Golden Age...need an update from
> time to time...but, if you do want to try to force a continuiation to
> a series that ended 15 years earlier, you kind of need to stick with
> all of it instead of just the random parts you like...otherwise, it's
> just best to start over.
It's like everything Dan Didio has done... there are a lot of good
ideas which are badly executed, especially in combination.
If it was Superman V: Superman Returns and a lot of junk was removed
it would have been a good idea
Superman I would probably be better, but I can understand why Superman
V seems like a good idea.
> >Ignoring 3 & 4 in the Superman series makes sense because they
> >weakened the series. And having an imaginary version of #2 works
> >story-wise. Now, I wouldn't do those things, but I can see why they
> >thought it was a good idea.
> It doesn't make sense because there is no way to explain any of it to
> the fans...it's just seriously bad writing.
Certainly. But I can understand *why* they wanted to do it that way.
> Well, the kid was a bad idea across the board...
Certainly.
> but, in theory, the idea of casting younger isn't a bad one.
It's a little annoying... she looked too young to pull off having been
a journo for more than 5 years... but if that was the only fault they
could have got away with it.
> >Yeah, and they were trying to combat that in a couple of ways. Simple
> >recasting would do they job but they were trying to think ahead.
> It was a terrible idea to try to continue that series after so much
> time has gone by...Superman really needed a relaunch...not a
> half-assed retread.
It did. It does.
> >I have a problem with casting an unknown who can't act...
> Well, yeah, there is that.
Then again, I've never seen him in anything else... some actors just
can't act in some roles.
> >I wish they hadn't done it but I can understand why.
> You misunderstand me...I understand why they did these things...I just
> don't understand how they thought any of it was a good idea.
As single elements most of them aren't "bad" by themself. It's the
combination and the execution. Even the ones that are bad, you can
see why they'd see them as good.
I mean, casting someone who you think looks like CR (and I only found
he did very, very rarely) seems like a nice continuity thing. If he
was a good actor and the rest of the film was great then it would have
been a fantastic idea... but he was illcast and it just loaded on the
problems.
> >> >Having Supes off-world for a long time explains the "gap" between
> >> >films.
> >> But makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
> >Yeah. Very flawed, but "there's been a five year gap between films"
> >quickly covers the gap (even though it is a lot more) rather than have
> >people be "confused" by whether it was a week later or twenty years.
> And yet they still confused people by ignoring two films and
> continuiing from a version of one that didn't actually exist.
True. The individual decision is OK... but in combination they are
bad.
> >Agreed 100%. However, human drama is something the Superman writers
> >always grapple with. This was a massively failed attempt to do just
> >that.
> Again, I get wanting to add drama...but how they thought this was a
> good way to do it is beyond me.
Man-discovers-he-has-illegitimate-child can be great human drama. And
it's certainly the sort of thing that could work to break the mold for
a random Superhero film. Doesn't really work for Supes though.
> >I know, I outwardly groaned at that. People looked at me in the
> >cinema. It was horrid. It was bad Indy or Bond. This is Superman it
> >shouldn't have happened, but they wanted to add a sense of human
> >danger to Superman... which makes sense, but was one of the things
> >they did badly wrong.
> How about adding a sense of danger by actually giving a Superman a
> threat worthy of the character for once (especially now that the
> special effects have reached the point where they can do it well)
> instead to just falling back on Kryptonite over and over and
> over...give him a super villain, damn it.
Which is why Superman II was one of the best films.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:10:25 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> >and gets things moving.
> I would think they would feel some pressure to keep up with what
> Marvel is doing.
I'd say that's why "DC Entertainment" was developed... someone at
Warner said "We've got Superman, Wonder Woman, and some big names, why
does Marvel keep doing better..."
Someone explained it and DC Entertainment was born.
However, creating DC Entertainment and giving it the power are
different things.
> >But they won't. Superman, Batman & Wonder Woman are the big draws so
> >they'll get the most attension.
> That all depends on the script and filmmaker...a good JLA film would
> give every member the chance to shine...I'm not saying it would be
> easy to balance but I refuse to believe it can't be done.
It can be done... but... writers would tend towards the big three,
directors would tend towards them... and the execs who know that they
are the big draws would "suggest" they be focused on more.
My film wouldn't get made because the execs would not allow the big
names not to be center.
> Furthermore, with my approach, there would be a vested interest in
> allowing the other characters their moments in the sun in order to
> promote their own films and what not.
More with mine as the Flash & GL film would be about to hit cinemas
soon after JLA finished at the Box Office... so there'd be an even
bigger vested interest... your approach would only increase video
sales for those films.
> >> just because that kind of thing
> >> has happened in Star Trek and X-Men doesn't mean its the only
> >> way...
> >But it is the Hollywood way. They do the thing that will make the
> >most money, not that works best.
> And having the big three in there in a significant role would cover
> that...but it doesn't dictate that they take over the film.
Doesn't dictate that Wolverine or Picard would take over their films
either... however...
> >Wow, don't what many films, huh?
> I assume you mean "watch"...and, yes, I do watch a lot of films...and,
> generally, the plotlines are not so drastically different that they
> don't eventually come together...
Exactly. And my plotlines do common together.
> at least in the GOOD films...you're
> idea has unrelated storylines going on that are entirely independent
> from the main plot of the movie and other storylines that just barely
> tie in...and all of it is horribly rushed to fit into a single film.
OK... I'm not sure what you're talking about here. My plots tie in
pretty tightly.
> >> >> >What weird definition of "middle" are you using?
> >> >> A general term for anything that isn't at the beginning or end of the
> >> >> film...sorry for not being more specific...but you should be happy I
> >> >> allowed you another opportunity to be snotty.
> >> >So from 0:00:01 to 1:59:59?
> >> Sure...if you like.
> >That's a weird definition of middle.
> It certainly would be if that's what I meant.
Well, you're calling parts of my film middle that really aren't.
> >> >Which moments are being glossed over?
> >> The origins and the initial formation of the team.
> >One of the origins and the formation is the point of the entire film.
> I guess it's just lost in translation then.
OK.
> >> Well, I'm not a huge fan of Hal at all...but actually do like his
> >> origin...the thing is, even though the initial origin moment is just
> >> that...we need more time to establish Hal's character before that
> >> moment and to see him figuring things out after he gets the ring...a
> >> group film isn't going to do that unless you pull a "New Frontier" and
> >> make him the focus of the story...and then we're entering Star
> >> Trek/X-Men territory again.
> >You can do the figuring out the ring thing in the story without
> >focusing on him, easy.
> I don't think you can...because scenes like that would be the first
> thing cut out of the movie for time purposes.
Point.
> >> >> OK...so why would a poor GL flick kill a JLA move then?
> >> >A poor GL film doesn't.
> >> >A poor GL film with commonality with the JLA films damages a JLA film.
> >> Not if it's only a minor connection that can be easily ignored or
> >> re-worked.
> >You mean like recasting Harvey Dent in the previous Batmans... it made
> >the previous fan-service more annoying.
> That one is a little more of an egregious change than I had in
> mind...I wouldn't have introduced Harvey without locking him down for
> the Two-Face storyline...and, if a change had to be made, I would
> simply scrap the Two-Face plotline all together.
And replace it with what?
> As far as the points of commonality or connectivity between these
> films, I would keep it a little more subtle than that...
More like the X-Men refs? People's names appearing on screens, etc?
> for instance,
> if I were going to do a Thanagarian invasion of earth as a JLA movie,
> I might introduce the Thanagarians as a race in the earlier GL
> film...perhaps even throw in the Thanagarian GL from the comics to set
> it up...not as a major plot point but just in the course of the
> story...obviously, other GLs should show up anyway so why not, right?
Works for me.
> >> >Imagine if RDjnr appeared in Hulk instead of Incredible Hulk or Dolph
> >> >Lundgren's Punisher had to be in The Avengers.
> >> Again, establishing the films as taking place in the same world
> >> doesn't have to lock them in to an Avengers film.
> >So you'd leave out an Avenger if they had a stinker film?
> Well, an Avengers film is a different animal than a JLA film...with
> the JLA, there several characters (the big three, Flash, GL) that you
> would pretty much HAVE to use in the film...with Avengers, you have a
> lot more options...there are really only a couple of characters you
> would be stuck with (Cap and Iron Man, most likely) and there are many
> possible choices to fill out the roster...Iron Man is already well
> established so he's a no-brainer...it does place some pressure on the
> Cap film though...but no one else is really irreplacable.
I would have thought that the CA/IM/Thor/Hulk big four would be
compulsory for at least the first film...
> My idea for that (and I think it's more or less what they are planning
> to do) is make a Cap film set in WWII and then have the others
> discover Cap on ice (or some variation) in the Avengers film.
Seems so... Hulk almost found him...
> Certainly, more care would have to be taken in doing something like
> this with the JLA to keep the prequels from bombing...but it's
> doable...and a lackluster film wouldn't necessarily prevent that
> character from going into the JLA...it would have to depend on the
> circumstances.
True.
> And, if worse comes to worse, there is nothing to prevent them from
> killing the connected prequel idea and just moving ahead with an
> unrelated JLA film...I don't think it would turn out very well but
> it's certainly an option.
Just as Superman & Batman wouldn't have to be connnected to their
films, Flash & GL films could appear first and establish the
characters without being part of the series.
> >No, the JLA is based on established character working together.
> >Fan-wank commonality would be page 22 of the latest issue of Batman
> >have him saying "I have to make a few calls" with the JLA heads on the
> >Bat-monitors and Batman appearing on page 22 of Superman, Wondy, GL,
> >etc to advertise next months JLA #1.
> No, the JLA is based on DC saying "Hey, we have all these popular
> characters in their own books...why don't throw them all together in
> one and really cash in."
Yes. They didn't add little references to every DC comic before the
first appearence in the JL's first appearence.
> >Never a big Avengers person so I can't comment but Hulk did always
> >seem out of place to me... even the films don't seem to be setting him
> >up to work well with The Avengers.
> More than likely, he wouldn't be a full-on member of the team so much
> as a victim of circumstance who gets drawn into the plot.
Seems so... didn't IM's appearence in IH imply he would be their
target?
> In the comics, Hulk is technically an original Avenger but that only
> lasted a couple issues and then he was gone...and he's never done more
> than a guest appearance since.
OK... as I say, don't know much about them.
> >> >Exactly. JLA gives them exposure because they won't get their own
> >> >film.
> >> And what good is that exposure if the film sucks?
> >Worked for The Hulk.
> How so? The character was already a popular and recognizable
> character...which is the only reason the second film
> happened...because they wanted it done right.
Flash isn't a popular and recognisable character?
> >Worked for EleKtra.
> Yes, one bad film spawned a worse one...not really the kind of
> exposure I'd wish on any character I liked.
Fair enough.
> >What I'm saying is that all things being equal, if say Disney scrapped
> >The Avengers universe today you'd never have The Avengers, whereas if
> >you'd started with The Avengers you'd have had that film and a spin-
> >off that than just two prequels.
> No, if Disney scrapped the Avengers "Universe," there would be nothing
> preventing them from going ahead with an unrelated and independent
> Avengers film down the line...it might delay it a while but it's a
> popular comic property so there will certainly still be
> interest...that said, I'd much rather have two GOOD prequels than one
> BAD Avengers film.
What guarentees do you have your prequels will be good?
> >> >But yours requires execs to stay with the program for 4 or more films
> >> >to get JLA 1. I start with JLA 1 and see where we go from there.
> >> Yes you do...but I don't think it would go anywhere from there...we
> >> can't control the execs so I'd prefer to focus on what works
> >> creatively and commercially...which is why I prefer my approach
> >Yours works better commercially. Mine works better creatively.
> And this is the central point we disagree on...I think mine works much
> better commercially AND creatively...I think we're pretty much at an
> impasse here.
That does seem to be the main point of disagreement.
> >I like/hate the animated projects at the moment. It gives a better
> >chance to tell the best stories, it gives a chance to play with styles
> >and casting that best fit the particular story... but then there's no
> >sense of continuity either
> Which is why I liked it better when they stuck to the
> Batman/Superman/Justice League TAS continuity rather than all these
> unrelated one-shot films...most of which have not impressed me.
I've only seen Superman/Doomsday and New Frontier... S/D had a good
first half but fell apart... needed to be a mini-series, I think. NF
never really grabbed me.
> >> Just because they haven't doesn't mean they can't.
> >Hollywood can't.
> I don't accept that...there was a time when Hollywood wouldn't come
> within a mile of a superhero property...trends and practices change.
Not quickly.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Sep 22, 1:41�pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> Not me...I'm of the opinion that these characters...particularly the
>> ones that have been around since the Golden Age...need an update from
>> time to time...but, if you do want to try to force a continuiation to
>> a series that ended 15 years earlier, you kind of need to stick with
>> all of it instead of just the random parts you like...otherwise, it's
>> just best to start over.
>
>It's like everything Dan Didio has done... there are a lot of good
>ideas which are badly executed, especially in combination.
>
>If it was Superman V: Superman Returns and a lot of junk was removed
>it would have been a good idea
>
>Superman I would probably be better, but I can understand why Superman
>V seems like a good idea.
Again, I don't...too much time had passed...and those films deserved
to stand on their own...without all the tacked-on retcons and other
bullshit.
>
>> >Ignoring 3 & 4 in the Superman series makes sense because they
>> >weakened the series. �And having an imaginary version of #2 works
>> >story-wise. �Now, I wouldn't do those things, but I can see why they
>> >thought it was a good idea.
>> It doesn't make sense because there is no way to explain any of it to
>> the fans...it's just seriously bad writing.
>
>Certainly. But I can understand *why* they wanted to do it that way.
You understand why they wanted to confuse the fans with a convoluted,
non-sensical plot?
>> Well, the kid was a bad idea across the board...
>
>Certainly.
>
>> but, in theory, the idea of casting younger isn't a bad one.
>
>It's a little annoying... she looked too young to pull off having been
>a journo for more than 5 years... but if that was the only fault they
>could have got away with it.
I meant, if they had started over (like they should have), casting
younger isn't a bad idea.
>
>> >Yeah, and they were trying to combat that in a couple of ways. �Simple
>> >recasting would do they job but they were trying to think ahead.
>> It was a terrible idea to try to continue that series after so much
>> time has gone by...Superman really needed a relaunch...not a
>> half-assed retread.
>
>It did. It does.
>
>> >I have a problem with casting an unknown who can't act...
>> Well, yeah, there is that.
>
>Then again, I've never seen him in anything else... some actors just
>can't act in some roles.
True...but this role should have been all that mattered.
>> >I wish they hadn't done it but I can understand why.
>> You misunderstand me...I understand why they did these things...I just
>> don't understand how they thought any of it was a good idea.
>
>As single elements most of them aren't "bad" by themself. It's the
>combination and the execution. Even the ones that are bad, you can
>see why they'd see them as good.
I can't...the film...and the story itself...is obviously quite
bad...probably not quite as bad as if Tim Burton had made a Superman
film with Nick Cage...but bad none the less...did no one actually read
the script before they started shooting?
>I mean, casting someone who you think looks like CR (and I only found
>he did very, very rarely) seems like a nice continuity thing. If he
>was a good actor and the rest of the film was great then it would have
>been a fantastic idea... but he was illcast and it just loaded on the
>problems.
>
>> >> >Having Supes off-world for a long time explains the "gap" between
>> >> >films.
>> >> But makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
>> >Yeah. �Very flawed, but "there's been a five year gap between films"
>> >quickly covers the gap (even though it is a lot more) rather than have
>> >people be "confused" by whether it was a week later or twenty years.
>> And yet they still confused people by ignoring two films and
>> continuiing from a version of one that didn't actually exist.
>
>True. The individual decision is OK... but in combination they are
>bad.
Which individual decision is OK? Because both ignoring two of the
films (with no way to explain this to fans) and working off a
non-existant version of the remaining films (again with no way to
explain this) seem like horrible ideas to me.
>> >Agreed 100%. �However, human drama is something the Superman writers
>> >always grapple with. �This was a massively failed attempt to do just
>> >that.
>> Again, I get wanting to add drama...but how they thought this was a
>> good way to do it is beyond me.
>
>Man-discovers-he-has-illegitimate-child can be great human drama. And
>it's certainly the sort of thing that could work to break the mold for
>a random Superhero film. Doesn't really work for Supes though.
Not at all...it (and particularly the circumstances) piss all over the
Superman mythos...it might have worked for some other character (even
Batman...as they just did something similar in the comics)...but most
definitely NOT Superman.
>> >I know, I outwardly groaned at that. �People looked at me in the
>> >cinema. �It was horrid. �It was bad Indy or Bond. �This is Superman it
>> >shouldn't have happened, but they wanted to add a sense of human
>> >danger to Superman... which makes sense, but was one of the things
>> >they did badly wrong.
>> How about adding a sense of danger by actually giving a Superman a
>> threat worthy of the character for once (especially now that the
>> special effects have reached the point where they can do it well)
>> instead to just falling back on Kryptonite over and over and
>> over...give him a super villain, damn it.
>
>Which is why Superman II was one of the best films.
Yes, but even there they went out of their way to side-step a full-on
super-slugfest...alternately de-powering Superman and the Zoners...now
that technology exists so that they actually CAN do such a battle on
screen, I can't fathom why they wouldn't do so...a good super-fight
could have at least partly made up for a lot of other defficiencies in
the film.
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Sep 22, 2:58�pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:10:25 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> >Unless the "DC Entertainment" gets some real money and power behind it
>> >and gets things moving.
>> I would think they would feel some pressure to keep up with what
>> Marvel is doing.
>
>I'd say that's why "DC Entertainment" was developed... someone at
>Warner said "We've got Superman, Wonder Woman, and some big names, why
>does Marvel keep doing better..."
>
>Someone explained it and DC Entertainment was born.
>
>However, creating DC Entertainment and giving it the power are
>different things.
We can always hope.
>> >But they won't. �Superman, Batman & Wonder Woman are the big draws so
>> >they'll get the most attension.
>> That all depends on the script and filmmaker...a good JLA film would
>> give every member the chance to shine...I'm not saying it would be
>> easy to balance but I refuse to believe it can't be done.
>
>It can be done... but... writers would tend towards the big three,
>directors would tend towards them... and the execs who know that they
>are the big draws would "suggest" they be focused on more.
That may be true but it the "big draws" CAN get their share of the
spotlight without crowding out the others...it might be a tough sell
but it is possible.
>My film wouldn't get made because the execs would not allow the big
>names not to be center.
I would say your film barely features teh big names at all...never
mind having them as the center...and I would say it's only one reason
it wouldn't be made.
>> Furthermore, with my approach, there would be a vested interest in
>> allowing the other characters their moments in the sun in order to
>> promote their own films and what not.
>
>More with mine as the Flash & GL film would be about to hit cinemas
>soon after JLA finished at the Box Office... so there'd be an even
>bigger vested interest... your approach would only increase video
>sales for those films.
Actually, no...your earlier argument was that my approach wouldn't
work because it would require them to committ to several films up
front...but, if your spin-offs are already in production and come so
soon after a JLA film, it would be the same deal...make up your
mind...furthermore, DVD sales are actually more important than box
office these days...and, assuming the prequels were successful (like
Iron Man), there would already be sequels in the works.
>> >> just because that kind of thing
>> >> has happened in Star Trek and X-Men doesn't mean its the only
>> >> way...
>> >But it is the Hollywood way. �They do the thing that will make the
>> >most money, not that works best.
>> And having the big three in there in a significant role would cover
>> that...but it doesn't dictate that they take over the film.
>
>Doesn't dictate that Wolverine or Picard would take over their films
>either... however...
Like I said before...just because that's how it has been done in the
past doesn't mean that's the way it has to be.
>> >Wow, don't what many films, huh?
>> I assume you mean "watch"...and, yes, I do watch a lot of films...and,
>> generally, the plotlines are not so drastically different that they
>> don't eventually come together...
>
>Exactly. And my plotlines do common together.
>
>> at least in the GOOD films...you're
>> idea has unrelated storylines going on that are entirely independent
>> from the main plot of the movie and other storylines that just barely
>> tie in...and all of it is horribly rushed to fit into a single film.
>
>OK... I'm not sure what you're talking about here. My plots tie in
>pretty tightly.
How exactly does Barry's origin tie-in again? You yourself admitted
it was forced...and Hal's origin my loosely tie-in but only loosely
and both origins would get trimmed down to nothing.
>> >> >> >What weird definition of "middle" are you using?
>> >> >> A general term for anything that isn't at the beginning or end of the
>> >> >> film...sorry for not being more specific...but you should be happy I
>> >> >> allowed you another opportunity to be snotty.
>> >> >So from 0:00:01 to 1:59:59?
>> >> Sure...if you like.
>> >That's a weird definition of middle.
>> It certainly would be if that's what I meant.
>
>Well, you're calling parts of my film middle that really aren't.
OK...how about "somewhere during the main body of the film?" Is that
better?
One of the many other wonderful villains in Batman's rogues gallery.
>> As far as the points of commonality or connectivity between these
>> films, I would keep it a little more subtle than that...
>
>More like the X-Men refs? People's names appearing on screens, etc?
Preferably something a little more substantial than that...somewhere
in between.
>> for instance,
>> if I were going to do a Thanagarian invasion of earth as a JLA movie,
>> I might introduce the Thanagarians as a race in the earlier GL
>> film...perhaps even throw in the Thanagarian GL from the comics to set
>> it up...not as a major plot point but just in the course of the
>> story...obviously, other GLs should show up anyway so why not, right?
>
>Works for me.
Just throwing things out there right now but I might also introduce
Iris West in a Worlds Finest film as a colleague of Lois and
Clark...just in a minor role during the course of the film...then have
her pop up in the Flash film in an obviously more significant
role...or vice versa...alternatively, you could have Barry, in his
role as police scientist, have dealings with Wayne industries in some
form or fashion...and possibly use the Rogues teaming up to spark the
idea in Barry for the JLA.
I might consider doing the Wonder Woman film first and have it totally
isolated...and then make a Trinity film instead of World's
Finest...possibly something in line with Matt Wagner's Trinity series
from a few years back.
>
>> >> >Imagine if RDjnr appeared in Hulk instead of Incredible Hulk or Dolph
>> >> >Lundgren's Punisher had to be in The Avengers.
>> >> Again, establishing the films as taking place in the same world
>> >> doesn't have to lock them in to an Avengers film.
>> >So you'd leave out an Avenger if they had a stinker film?
>
>> Well, an Avengers film is a different animal than a JLA film...with
>> the JLA, there several characters (the big three, Flash, GL) that you
>> would pretty much HAVE to use in the film...with Avengers, you have a
>> lot more options...there are really only a couple of characters you
>> would be stuck with (Cap and Iron Man, most likely) and there are many
>> possible choices to fill out the roster...Iron Man is already well
>> established so he's a no-brainer...it does place some pressure on the
>> Cap film though...but no one else is really irreplacable.
>
>I would have thought that the CA/IM/Thor/Hulk big four would be
>compulsory for at least the first film...
As I've said, Hulk isn't very closely associated with the
Avengers...Thor is, but I don't think it rises to the degree of IM and
CA...and I tend to think it might be better to hold off on the
introduction of Thor for an Avengers sequel...similar to what they
tried with Silver Surfer in the second FF film...except, you know,
GOOD.
>> My idea for that (and I think it's more or less what they are planning
>> to do) is make a Cap film set in WWII and then have the others
>> discover Cap on ice (or some variation) in the Avengers film.
>
>Seems so... Hulk almost found him...
Right.
>> Certainly, more care would have to be taken in doing something like
>> this with the JLA to keep the prequels from bombing...but it's
>> doable...and a lackluster film wouldn't necessarily prevent that
>> character from going into the JLA...it would have to depend on the
>> circumstances.
>
>True.
>
>> And, if worse comes to worse, there is nothing to prevent them from
>> killing the connected prequel idea and just moving ahead with an
>> unrelated JLA film...I don't think it would turn out very well but
>> it's certainly an option.
>
>Just as Superman & Batman wouldn't have to be connnected to their
>films, Flash & GL films could appear first and establish the
>characters without being part of the series.
They could...but, if the films are going to be made first anyway, why
not go for it?
>> >No, the JLA is based on established character working together.
>> >Fan-wank commonality would be page 22 of the latest issue of Batman
>> >have him saying "I have to make a few calls" with the JLA heads on the
>> >Bat-monitors and Batman appearing on page 22 of Superman, Wondy, GL,
>> >etc to advertise next months JLA #1.
>> No, the JLA is based on DC saying "Hey, we have all these popular
>> characters in their own books...why don't throw them all together in
>> one and really cash in."
>
>Yes. They didn't add little references to every DC comic before the
>first appearence in the JL's first appearence.
Probably at least partly because they didn't have a plan to team them
up in the first place...early JLA stories don't exactly line-up with
the characters' solo stories at the time.
>> >Never a big Avengers person so I can't comment but Hulk did always
>> >seem out of place to me... even the films don't seem to be setting him
>> >up to work well with The Avengers.
>> More than likely, he wouldn't be a full-on member of the team so much
>> as a victim of circumstance who gets drawn into the plot.
>
>Seems so... didn't IM's appearence in IH imply he would be their
>target?
Yes...and that would actually be in line with a typical Hulk
appearance in the Avengers...though I doubt they would make it the
focus of the film...probably just a part of it...you know, the
stereotypical hero first meeting that always leads to misunderstanding
and a fight.
>> In the comics, Hulk is technically an original Avenger but that only
>> lasted a couple issues and then he was gone...and he's never done more
>> than a guest appearance since.
>
>OK... as I say, don't know much about them.
>
>> >> >Exactly. �JLA gives them exposure because they won't get their own
>> >> >film.
>> >> And what good is that exposure if the film sucks?
>> >Worked for The Hulk.
>> How so? �The character was already a popular and recognizable
>> character...which is the only reason the second film
>> happened...because they wanted it done right.
>
>Flash isn't a popular and recognisable character?
What's your point? You were talking about the lesser characters that
aren't likely to get their own films...I wouldn't place Flash in that
category.
>> >Worked for EleKtra.
>> Yes, one bad film spawned a worse one...not really the kind of
>> exposure I'd wish on any character I liked.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>> >What I'm saying is that all things being equal, if say Disney scrapped
>> >The Avengers universe today you'd never have The Avengers, whereas if
>> >you'd started with The Avengers you'd have had that film and a spin-
>> >off that than just two prequels.
>> No, if Disney scrapped the Avengers "Universe," there would be nothing
>> preventing them from going ahead with an unrelated and independent
>> Avengers film down the line...it might delay it a while but it's a
>> popular comic property so there will certainly still be
>> interest...that said, I'd much rather have two GOOD prequels than one
>> BAD Avengers film.
>
>What guarentees do you have your prequels will be good?
The same guarantee you have that your JLA movie will be good...you
have to hope for the best, don't you?
>> >> >But yours requires execs to stay with the program for 4 or more films
>> >> >to get JLA 1. �I start with JLA 1 and see where we go from there.
>> >> Yes you do...but I don't think it would go anywhere from there...we
>> >> can't control the execs so I'd prefer to focus on what works
>> >> creatively and commercially...which is why I prefer my approach
>> >Yours works better commercially. �Mine works better creatively.
>> And this is the central point we disagree on...I think mine works much
>> better commercially AND creatively...I think we're pretty much at an
>> impasse here.
>
>That does seem to be the main point of disagreement.
>
>> >I like/hate the animated projects at the moment. �It gives a better
>> >chance to tell the best stories, it gives a chance to play with styles
>> >and casting that best fit the particular story... but then there's no
>> >sense of continuity either
>> Which is why I liked it better when they stuck to the
>> Batman/Superman/Justice League TAS continuity rather than all these
>> unrelated one-shot films...most of which have not impressed me.
>
>I've only seen Superman/Doomsday and New Frontier... S/D had a good
>first half but fell apart...
That's because the death of Superman is by far the best part of the
story...the return (both in the comics and the movie) is pretty
lackluster...they never should have combined the two.
needed to be a mini-series, I think. NF
>never really grabbed me.
Me neither...I loved the comic but the movie didn't really work for
me.
The Wonder Woman and Batman: Gotham Knights films were actually pretty
good...GL was ok but it could have been better...they tried to
condense too many elements from seperate stories into the origin...I'm
looking forward to the Superman/Batman: Public Enemies film if only
because Kevin Conroy is voicing Batman again.
>> >> Just because they haven't doesn't mean they can't.
>> >Hollywood can't.
>> I don't accept that...there was a time when Hollywood wouldn't come
>> within a mile of a superhero property...trends and practices change.
>
>Not quickly.
I have time.
Unknown
news:o83hb5p85eb4hqg0k...@4ax.com...
> That's because the death of Superman is by far the best part of the
> story...the return (both in the comics and the movie) is pretty
> lackluster...they never should have combined the two.
I disagree. The death of Superman was two beings pounding on each other in
a borefest. Doomsday was not interesting at all.
The "World without Superman" follow-up was way more interesting to me. The
return . . . not so much as I didn't care for how they did it.
grinningdemon
>"grinningdemon" <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:o83hb5p85eb4hqg0k...@4ax.com...
>
>> That's because the death of Superman is by far the best part of the
>> story...the return (both in the comics and the movie) is pretty
>> lackluster...they never should have combined the two.
>
>I disagree. The death of Superman was two beings pounding on each other in
>a borefest. Doomsday was not interesting at all.
Doomsday didn't have to be...I'm all for interesting villains but
sometimes you just want to see a big monster fight...Doomsday was
nothing but a rampaging killing machine...and that was what he needed
to be for the story...they needed to make the reader believe that only
Superman could stand against him and, while I certainly see room for
improvement, I thought it was handled pretty well as is.
>The "World without Superman" follow-up was way more interesting to me. The
>return . . . not so much as I didn't care for how they did it.
I'll admit the "Funeral for a Friend" arc was decent but it just
didn't have anywhere near the impact of the death itself...and,
regardless, the return was lame.
Eminence
<grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>The thing with the whole Greek mythology thing is it's REALLY gotta be
>>done right... It's hard to pull off without being campy.
>
>I agree it will be hard to pull off...but... if they can pull off Lord of the Rings, I think they can do justice to
>Wonder Woman.
>
>>> Bringing in the New Gods (particularly Darkseid) would probably be
>>> good for a JLA movie but not so much for Wonder Woman...and, even
>>> then, I'd save them for a JLA sequel rather than using them up front.
BUT: A JLA movie using Darkseid (and his quest for the anti-life
equation) as the major foe *can* be seen as just Lord of the Rings in
spandex and capes. You know how shallow the critics and the
mainstreamers can be ;-)
Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned
Eminence
<grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>> But you still have to establish buth Hal and J'Onn as characters...
>>Happens as the film progresses, like most films.
>Most films don't have this many lead characters...and, of those that
>do, they mostly end up following that Star Trek/X-Men trend where one
>or two characters get most of the spotlight...if most of the
>characters are already introduced in their own films, then they can be
>treated more or less equally in the JLA film.
And that's the root of the problem. Let's spitball for a moment:
Iron Man and Hulk have already been introduced to the contemporary
Marvel movie audience with two films each (Iron Man 2 is due out next
summer; grant me a little latitude on that one). Thor is slated to get
a film of his own. If we assume that at least part of the plotline of
an Avengers movie concerns finding and reviving Captain America (whose
backstory can be explained in-film via briefings from Nick Fury to the
others), that leaves Giant Man and the Wasp... and they get brushed
off with a "Oh, this is Doctor Hank Pym. He's invented/discovered
these particles that allow size changes." And that's it. Sorry, Hank
and Jan fans, but those two probably won't get a stand-alone film
unless Disney has money to burn. But on the plus side, their origins
aren't overly complicated and they are linked to each other.
Contrast this with the JLA. Five Superman movies and six Batman movies
exist, and there's supposed to be a GL movie in the pipeline. On the
one hand, WW, Flash, Aquaman, and J'Onn (especially J'Onn) need
introducing; on the other, we might be able to give audiences a little
bit of credit and *assume* that the only real unknown there is the
Manhunter. Given the way that origins tend to slow a story down --
especially if we have to have 4 of them -- would all that be
necessary? Maybe we establish at the beginning that Bats has been
keeping tabs on emerging metahumans ("I've seen reports about a guy in
Central City who's supposed to be fast...") and leave it at that?
>>> and that would take a fair amount of time...and I just think the GL origin
>>> deserves its own movie...there is so much that would be lost if it had
>>> to be trimmed down to 10 minutes or less to fit in a team movie.
>>The moment of origin, like in his first story doesn't need much... I
>>think the post-JLA GL needs to explore the Guardians and stuff,
>>though.
>And I think that would work better coming pre-JLA.
Guess I'm gonna have to throw in with Duggy on this one; if the team
film works, it piques the curiosity of the audience to learn more
about the other heroes, whereas if costly solo films bomb, there might
not be enough good will from the suits to justify a team project.
grinningdemon
<grey.e...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 01:37:40 -0500, grinningdemon
><grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>> But you still have to establish buth Hal and J'Onn as characters...
>
>>>Happens as the film progresses, like most films.
>
>>Most films don't have this many lead characters...and, of those that
>>do, they mostly end up following that Star Trek/X-Men trend where one
>>or two characters get most of the spotlight...if most of the
>>characters are already introduced in their own films, then they can be
>>treated more or less equally in the JLA film.
>
>And that's the root of the problem. Let's spitball for a moment:
>
>Iron Man and Hulk have already been introduced to the contemporary
>Marvel movie audience with two films each (Iron Man 2 is due out next
>summer; grant me a little latitude on that one). Thor is slated to get
>a film of his own. If we assume that at least part of the plotline of
>an Avengers movie concerns finding and reviving Captain America (whose
>backstory can be explained in-film via briefings from Nick Fury to the
>others), that leaves Giant Man and the Wasp... and they get brushed
>off with a "Oh, this is Doctor Hank Pym. He's invented/discovered
>these particles that allow size changes." And that's it. Sorry, Hank
>and Jan fans, but those two probably won't get a stand-alone film
>unless Disney has money to burn. But on the plus side, their origins
>aren't overly complicated and they are linked to each other.
I'd actually be surprised if Hank and Jan even make it into an
Avengers film...there are other more popular Avengers (Hawkeye,
Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, etc.) that would be more likely suspects,
in my opinion...and I doubt they'd stick to the original Avengers from
the comic...because they pretty much never stick that close to the
comic.
>Contrast this with the JLA. Five Superman movies and six Batman movies
>exist, and there's supposed to be a GL movie in the pipeline. On the
>one hand, WW, Flash, Aquaman, and J'Onn (especially J'Onn) need
>introducing; on the other, we might be able to give audiences a little
>bit of credit and *assume* that the only real unknown there is the
>Manhunter. Given the way that origins tend to slow a story down --
>especially if we have to have 4 of them -- would all that be
>necessary? Maybe we establish at the beginning that Bats has been
>keeping tabs on emerging metahumans ("I've seen reports about a guy in
>Central City who's supposed to be fast...") and leave it at that?
I don't think that would work...the characters are just too unique and
I think viewers would either be disappointed or even confused if they
don't get origins.
>>>> and that would take a fair amount of time...and I just think the GL origin
>>>> deserves its own movie...there is so much that would be lost if it had
>>>> to be trimmed down to 10 minutes or less to fit in a team movie.
>
>>>The moment of origin, like in his first story doesn't need much... I
>>>think the post-JLA GL needs to explore the Guardians and stuff,
>>>though.
>
>>And I think that would work better coming pre-JLA.
>
>Guess I'm gonna have to throw in with Duggy on this one; if the team
>film works, it piques the curiosity of the audience to learn more
>about the other heroes, whereas if costly solo films bomb, there might
>not be enough good will from the suits to justify a team project.
But it would be a lot harder to do a team film well...and, if we don't
get most of the line-up introduced in earlier films first, I'd bet
money that they will just go the X-Men route and make the movie all
about the most popular and well known character(s)...it might be a
successful film but that approach wouldn't really spotlight any of the
characters beyond the big three and, as such, is highly unlikely to
spark interest in films for the "supporting cast"...after all, look
who got the X-Men spin-off.
Duggy's idea for the team film is meant to specifically avoid that but
even he admits that his version would never be made.
Eminence
<grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>Guess I'm gonna have to throw in with Duggy on this one
>Duggy's idea for the team film is meant to specifically avoid that but
>even he admits that his version would never be made.
Hurm. Maybe I would have read more closely if you two hadn't buried
that in a 400-line post ;-)
grinningdemon
<grey.e...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:12:19 -0500, grinningdemon
><grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>Guess I'm gonna have to throw in with Duggy on this one
>
>>Duggy's idea for the team film is meant to specifically avoid that but
>>even he admits that his version would never be made.
>
>Hurm. Maybe I would have read more closely if you two hadn't buried
>that in a 400-line post ;-)
It happens.
Edward McArdle
<Wil...@lions-den.org> wrote:
>On 10-Sep-2009, grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> >I would not, actually. I don't feel that either a Justice League or
>> >Avengers movie will really work. Mark my words (or not).
>>
>> They could only work if they slowly build up to it the way Marvel is
>> currently approaching an Avengers movie by laying the groundwork in
>> Iron Man, Hulk, etc.
>>
>> The problem with these teams is the characters are all too different
>> with very different origins...it's not like the X-Men where you can
>> just explain the mutant idea and be done with it...it's too much to
>> service in a single movie and do justice to it.
>>
>> And, even with the simplified mutant concept, the X-Men movies were
>> still all about a single character anyway (care to guess which
>> one?)...we've yet to see an actual X-Men team movie...and I would HATE
>> to see a JLA movie that was all about Superman and/or Batman...or an
>> Avengers movie that was all about Captain America.
>
>I don't know what this has to do with Pro-Wrestling, but I do agree with the
>rest!
>
>Most of the General Public would be more familiar with names like Superman,
>Batman, Flash than they would of a team called "Justice League of America".
>We seen Superman and Batman in various incarnations such as 1940s movie
>seriels, 1950s TV Series, 1960s TV Series, 1980s films, 1990s films,
>Super-Friends, etc.! Having the characters in individual flicks would be
>more special to get the audience more familiar, then show how they all work
>together!
>
>Most people would be familiar with Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, etc.
>before they would recognize the team called "The Avengers". I think the way
>that they are doing a solo film of each character prior to the team film is
>the wisest approach.
>
>The Fantastic Four, on the other hand, was created as a family of characters
>from the very beginning! Occasionally The Thing, and the Human Torch will
>have solo stories due to their uniquness!
I disagree. The Avengers has already been a very successful television
show. But I doubt that Patrick McNee is still spry enough to take the lead
role...
--
Edward McArdle
Duggy
> In article <012d8968$0$1755$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, "Wildcat"
>
>
>
> <Wild...@lions-den.org> wrote:
Reject.
===
= DUG.
===