Re: GL Update (was Re: Green Lantern -- Way Better Than The Critics Say!)
KalElFan
news:6fidnW82AMMn0mPQ...@supernews.com...
> On 19/06/2011 3:54 PM, KalElFan wrote:
>
>> The awful reviews undoubtedly hurt, but there's extensive evidence
>> those who have seen it liked it more than the critics did....
>
> It's all irrelevant until the second week. A "good" movie will maintain
> [its] audience.
No, they all decline and most of them sharply. For example the new
X-Men was at about $5 million by the first Tuesday, which is where GL
was at yesterday in the early estimate. Movies with big openings like
this typically drop 50% or more their first weekend.
X-Men won't do that much better than GL, and Super 8 will probably
end up with less unless it holds incredibly well from here on. The big
problem is GL reportedly cost $200M to produce, whereas X-Men only
cost $160M and Super 8 only $50 million. Marketing for GL is also said
to be another $100M, though Warners denies the costs (i.e., $300M in
total) were that high.
Warners blew their brains out on the cost of the thing, but I think it'd
be a big mistake to abandon Green Lantern and, by extension, the very
good opportunity it provides to continue with the rest of the franchise.
If Disney/Marvel and others can make these movies cheaper then so can
Warners.
Ghost Rider cost $110 million, grossed $116M domestic and a bit less
than that overseas, and is spawning a sequel.
Hellboy cost $66 million, grossed $99 million worldwide and spawned a
sequel. The sequel did cost $85 million, so $19 million more, but grossed
$60M+ more (i.e., $160 million worldwide).
I think the upside of future Green Lantern, Flash, Wonder Woman and
Justice League movies is much higher than the likes of Ghost Rider and
Hellboy. At $300M+ a pop the risk is too high, but if they can treat this
as an investment and learning curve, and cap it at $150 million or so
($175M-$200M tops including marketing), there shouldn't be much of
a downside. If they'd stopped with Batman Begins they'd never have
seen the Dark Knight payday.
When I was checking some facts and numbers on the GL page at IMDb,
I was surprised to see Laura Vandervoort was among those at the GL
premiere.
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm711638528/tt1133985
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3731471872/tt1133985
She wasn't in the movie obviously, but what a Karma-like Clue that she
should be playing Supergirl in the Green Lantern sequel. It should NOT
be as the Smallverse Supergirl, but a reboot of the character in the GL-
and eventually JL-movieverse. It'd be a great marketing boost for the
GL sequel, and potentially gives them a better relationship option for
Hal. DC experts -- have GL and Supergirl ever been a couple in any of
the comic incarnations?
Professor Bubba
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> DC experts -- have GL and Supergirl ever been a couple in any of
> the comic incarnations?
I don't think so. That simply would not have happened during the
Silver Age, and more recently Supergirl has been linked to others,
including Captain Marvel Jr. and Arsenal, the former Speedy.
GL was once linked to Arisia, a very young-looking Lantern who in fact
was a hundred years or so older than he.
redhawk
[...]
>
> When I was checking some facts and numbers on the GL page at IMDb,
> I was surprised to see Laura Vandervoort was among those at the GL
> premiere.
>
> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm711638528/tt1133985
>
> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3731471872/tt1133985
>
> She wasn't in the movie obviously, but what a Karma-like Clue that she
> should be playing Supergirl in the Green Lantern sequel. It should NOT
> be as the Smallverse Supergirl, but a reboot of the character in the GL-
> and eventually JL-movieverse. It'd be a great marketing boost for the
> GL sequel, and potentially gives them a better relationship option for
> Hal. DC experts -- have GL and Supergirl ever been a couple in any of
> the comic incarnations?
http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/File:Green_Lantern_Supergirl_flirting.jpg
http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Brave_and_the_Bold_Vol_3_2
There is precedent, at least for some romantic sparks between the
two. And then Green Lantern can make cameo appearances in future
"Laura Vandervoort's Supergirl" movies. :-)
KalElFan
news:220620111549188562%bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid...
> In article <96etrl...@mid.individual.net>, KalElFan
> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> ... DC experts -- have GL and Supergirl ever been a couple in any
>> of the comic incarnations?
>
> I don't think so. That simply would not have happened during the
> Silver Age, and more recently Supergirl has been linked to others,
> including Captain Marvel Jr. and Arsenal, the former Speedy.
>
> GL was once linked to Arisia, a very young-looking Lantern who in
> fact was a hundred years or so older than he.
They could also go the route of having Vandervoort play a different
character like that, or Power Girl or some such, but the much better
option is Supergirl. There's no reason the character can't be early
20s (Vandervoort is 26).
It occurs to me that if DC loses Superman after the 2012 movie, they
could also use Supergirl as his replacement in the Justice League. Have
Superman be written as off-planet on a mission or some such. Unless
the estates lawsuit deems Supergirl as derivative of Superman, which
I highly doubt from what I've read about that ruling.
Anyway, I never would have thought of having Supergirl prop up the
Green Lantern sequel until I saw those Vandervoort photos at the
premiere. If it were me I'd be Green-Lighting that sequel today and
slotting it in for 2013. :-)
KalElFan
news:39078842-9e55-4d48...@g16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/File:Green_Lantern_Supergirl_flirting.jpg
>
> http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Brave_and_the_Bold_Vol_3_2
For those who don't click those links, the first is a page from the
issue cover at the second link. The page has the two of them
flying, a common power that makes it work even better.
So we have the one-issue story precedent at least, which is good
because now it's DC's idea. Makes them even bigger idiots if they
don't seize this opportunity. :-)
> There is precedent, at least for some romantic sparks between the
> two. And then Green Lantern can make cameo appearances in
> future "Laura Vandervoort's Supergirl" movies. :-)
They could do that as well, but mainly I'm thinking GL. It's a very
worthy movie IMO, but the sequel is in doubt and I think Supergirl
would make it more viable and marketable. All the more so since
the Ferris character pretty much bombed. The sequel could just
have her turn evil as the comics do, but irrevocably kill her off.
Martin Phipps
Why not go straight into a Justice League movie? People are familiar
now with most of the characters. I don't see why they all have to be
introduced in their own movies when Flash, Wonderwoman and the Green
Arrow (from Smallville) are all known from TV.
How's this? Wonderwoman's mother tells her that she needs to go to
man's world because there is a darkness coming that will threaten the
entire Earth, including Paradise Island and she needs to gather heroes
to combat it. The threat is Darkseid. Wonderwoman contacts Superman,
Supergirl and Green Lantern. Of course, this is assuming that there
is a Supergirl in the upcoming Superman: Man of Steel movie. What
they could do is have Supergirl appear after the credits. Okay so
then Glorious Godfrey tells people that vigantees need to be rounded
up and jailed (see the comic book series Legends or Smallville Season
10). This then brings Batman and Green Arrow in. At first Green
Arrow turns himself in to obey the law but Batman breaks him out of
prison and tells him he's done nothing wrong. Batman suspects that
some evil is behind all this and he contacts Superman, Supergirl,
Wonder Woman and Green Lantern and they compare notes. Then planet
Apokalips appears in the sky above Earth. Darkseid sends his forces
to Earth and the Justice League fight them and drive them off. Now
for the ending of the movie they need something better than just
having Superman push Apokalips away. I would have Apocalips appear
from out of a wormhole in space and then have Superman fly around the
wormhole at the speed of light and get it to suck Apocalips back into
it and back from where it came from. Green Lantern can help here
because his ring will tell him what to do. Better yet you can have
Hal ask Sinestro for help and Sinestro becomes a founding member of
teh Justice League but then Sinestro and the Justice League part ways
because Sinestro is just too... sinister... now that he's using the
yellow fear ring. Hal and Sinestro can fight at the end and Sinestro
tells Hal that he will never be worthy of Abun Sur's ring.
That's enough. Maybe Sinestro can be the big bad in a sequel. He now
wants to destroy the Justice League and he gathers an army of Yellow
Lanterns to fight the Justice League. The sequel can also introduce
the Flash if he doesn't get his own movie. And Black Canary can also
be a new recruit, someone who just shows up one day and asks to join
because she has sonic powers and can fight really well and she and
Green Arrow hit it off. Wonderwoman can also assume her Diana Prince
role in the sequel so she can better understand "the world of man".
That's what I would do. I would take the Green Lantern movie and go
directly into a Justice League movie, one that would also follow the
Superman: Man of Steel movie. I wouldn't have individual movies for
Justice League characters, not unless the Justice League movie itself
does really well at the box office. They could also have a proper
sequel to the new Superman movie if that does well, say with Brainiac
and Doomsday as villains. I really don't want to see Lex Luthor on
the big screen anymore as he's been done to death. I'm sorry but he
is NOT a big threat compared to Zod, Parallax, Darkseid, Brainiac,
Doomsday or even Sinestro. Wonderwoman can just snap his neck and
he's done. :)
Martin
Duggy
> Why not go straight into a Justice League movie?
Because they spent a fuck load of money putting that into pre-
production in 2007-2008 and failed.
Sorry got bored and fell asleep.
===
= DUG.
===
Martin Phipps
Sinestro and an army of Yellow Lanterns is still a pretty lame threat
compared to Zod, Parallax, Brainiac, Doomsday or Darkseid. To make it
more interesting, Sinestro could give yellow rings not to aliens but
to people our heroes know, people who will become corrupted by the
rings and end up joining him in his quest to destroy the Justice
League. In fact, Sinestro can still be a hero at the beginning of the
third movie who only wants to compete with the Justice League and
forms a Legion of Doom that is intended to combat evil but whose
methods are so ruthless that the Justice League has to stop them.
That would be a much better story than having Sinestro wanting to
simply destroy our heroes. That would then complete a trilogy with
Green Lantern and two Justice League movies which could then be
followed by movies focusing on The Flash, Wonderwoman, Supergirl or
Green Arrow.
So, to summarize, the Justice League movie would have Superman,
Supergirl, Green Lantern, Sinestro, Wonderwoman, Batman and Green
Arrow and the sequel would have Superman, Supergirl, Green Lantern,
Wonderwoman, Batman, Green Arrow, Flash and Black Canary with Sinestro
now the villain. Or maybe Black Canary can be one of the people who
wears a yellow ring in the Justice League sequel and she only joind
the Justice League at the end.
Martin
Martin
Martin Phipps
> On Jun 23, 2:35 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why not go straight into a Justice League movie?
>
> Because they spent a fuck load of money putting that into pre-
> production in 2007-2008 and failed.
So this GL movie is being chalked up as a success?
Martin
Duggy
AOL/Time Warner doesn't want to spend money on a JLA atm because
they've recently lost a lot of money on trying to make one that was
never produced and you think that makes the latest GL film a success?
Huh?
===
= DUG.
===
Martin Phipps
I asked you first. If Warners doesn't want to go ahead with a JLA
movie because they couldn't get one off the ground during the writer's
strike then what hope does a GL sequel have when the first movie
supposedly had everything going for it (Martin Campbell, Ryan
Reynolds, Blake Lively, big budget for SFX etc.)?
Martin
Martin
Not.A.Maltisian
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
23-19 oh my god, unsolicited material, you might sue me!!!!
That's what Hollywierd has to say about your delusion.
Hollywierd is it's own worst enemy.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Sinestro IS the big bad in all the comics.
Yellow Lantern Corp, Sinestro is the bad guy.
Try reading Emerald Dawn II
Sinestro is arrested, stripped of his ring, tried and sent to who
knows where, perhaps the citadel, Qward?
I just don't remember.
>He now
>wants to destroy the Justice League and he gathers an army of Yellow
>Lanterns to fight the Justice League. The sequel can also introduce
>the Flash if he doesn't get his own movie. And Black Canary can also
>be a new recruit, someone who just shows up one day and asks to join
>because she has sonic powers and can fight really well and she and
>Green Arrow hit it off. Wonderwoman can also assume her Diana Prince
>role in the sequel so she can better understand "the world of man".
>
>That's what I would do. I would take the Green Lantern movie and go
>directly into a Justice League movie, one that would also follow the
>Superman: Man of Steel movie. I wouldn't have individual movies for
>Justice League characters, not unless the Justice League movie itself
>does really well at the box office. They could also have a proper
>sequel to the new Superman movie if that does well, say with Brainiac
>and Doomsday as villains.
Oh, you haven't heard or seen Brainiac attacks, the animated feature,
bring a barf bucket with you.
> I really don't want to see Lex Luthor on
>the big screen anymore as he's been done to death. I'm sorry but he
>is NOT a big threat compared to Zod, Parallax, Darkseid, Brainiac,
>Doomsday or even Sinestro. Wonderwoman can just snap his neck and
>he's done. :)
Can't kill people in kartoons, even though Lex already did in
DoomsDay, the animated piece.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0934706/
He blew Mercy's head off.
>
>Martin
Call WB, (818.954.1744) ask for Jeff Robinov, tell him all about it,
if you can get him on the phone and he doesn't hang up on you first.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/29/business/la-fi-0329-ct-warner-robinov-20110329
Follicly challenged individual on the left.
or, send him a letter.
4000 Warner Boulevard
Burbank, CA. 91522
Ooooooooooo, Scifi is showing old B&W twilight zone.
I'm not role playing anymore.
Duggy
> I asked you first. If Warners doesn't want to go ahead with a JLA
> movie because they couldn't get one off the ground during the writer's
> strike
The writer's strike was a bluff. They had a massive fight with
Kennedy.
> then what hope does a GL sequel have when the first movie
> supposedly had everything going for it (Martin Campbell, Ryan
> Reynolds, Blake Lively, big budget for SFX etc.)?
Have you factored in the cost of the previous failed GL films?
===
= DUG.
===
Martin Phipps
Okay, look, Duggy, I'm having trouble following your point.
Twice Warners failed to make a new Superman movie (first with Tim
Burton and then with Abrams). They still made Superman Returns.
There was at least one failed GL project that I know of (with Jack
Black). They still made the Green Lantern movie.
If anything, the fact that they try and fail to make a movie is an
indication that they will eventually make one so I expect Justice
League, Wonder Woman, Flash and Green Arrow movies eventually.
Frankly it would make more sense for them to do a Justice League
movie. Why? Because if the public at large doesn't like a casting
choice then they either don't go ahead with the solo movie or they
recast the role. Recasting Batman for a Justice League movie
shouldn't be a problem: the guy wears a mask. Just find somebody who
is the right size to fill the costume. Dub the voice if necessary.
If the Superman: Man of Steel movie is a big success then the time
would be right for a Justice League movie. And even if Superman: Man
of Steel is a flop then a JLA movie would still be the best option
because Batman is riding a wave of popularity after the Nolan films
and Nolan has already said TDKR would be his last Batman movie.
Really, putting out another GL movie would mean throwing good money
away. They can recoup their investment by having Hal Jordan appear in
a couple of JLA movies.
Martin
Duggy
> > Have you factored in the cost of the previous failed GL films?
> Okay, look, Duggy, I'm having trouble following your point.
> Twice Warners failed to make a new Superman movie (first with Tim
> Burton and then with Abrams). They still made Superman Returns.
After a long break between attempts.
> There was at least one failed GL project that I know of (with Jack
> Black). They still made the Green Lantern movie.
That one was in pre-pre-production.
> If anything, the fact that they try and fail to make a movie is an
> indication that they will eventually make one so I expect Justice
> League, Wonder Woman, Flash and Green Arrow movies eventually.
Kennedy - who Time Warner hated and didn't want to use - was still
talking about making it until late 2010 when he admitted it won't
happen. When AOL/Time Warner are free of contractual obligations to
him, the they can start on the next attempt.
> Frankly it would make more sense for them to do a Justice League
> movie.
With someone they don't want to make the film with? Why?
> Why? Because if the public at large doesn't like a casting
> choice then they either don't go ahead with the solo movie or they
> recast the role.
If the public don't like a casting choice for a solo film they can
recast for the JLA film.
> Recasting Batman for a Justice League movie
> shouldn't be a problem: the guy wears a mask. Just find somebody who
> is the right size to fill the costume. Dub the voice if necessary.
Because Batman's never been recast.
> If the Superman: Man of Steel movie is a big success then the time
> would be right for a Justice League movie.
Depends.
I don't think the current Batman would work in a JLA film. That may
apply to the MOS Superman.
> Really, putting out another GL movie would mean throwing good money
> away.
During the making of GL they were talking about it leading to films
for other individual characters. Not just GL2.
> They can recoup their investment by having Hal Jordan appear in
> a couple of JLA movies.
Or ignore the GL film.
Whatever.
===
= DUG.
===
Martin Phipps
> On Jun 24, 11:08 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Have you factored in the cost of the previous failed GL films?
> > Okay, look, Duggy, I'm having trouble following your point.
> > Twice Warners failed to make a new Superman movie (first with Tim
> > Burton and then with Abrams). They still made Superman Returns.
>
> After a long break between attempts.
>
> > There was at least one failed GL project that I know of (with Jack
> > Black). They still made the Green Lantern movie.
>
> That one was in pre-pre-production.
>
> > If anything, the fact that they try and fail to make a movie is an
> > indication that they will eventually make one so I expect Justice
> > League, Wonder Woman, Flash and Green Arrow movies eventually.
>
> Kennedy - who Time Warner hated and didn't want to use - was still
> talking about making it until late 2010 when he admitted it won't
> happen.
Kennedy Miller Mitchell? The guy who was supposed to do Justice
League, Babe 3 and Happy Feet 3 with George Miller? None of those
films have come out.
> When AOL/Time Warner are free of contractual obligations to
> him, the they can start on the next attempt.
I know you try to sound as if you know what you are talking about but,
frankly, my understanding was that this was supposed to be an animated
movie made with motion capture technology. As there have already been
animated Justice League movies produced in the meantime, I don't see
why they can't do a live action Justice League movie. It's already
2011. The Superman and Batman movies come out in 2012. There's no
way a contract with Mitchel and Miller from 2008 is going to prevent
them from starting pre-production on a JLA movie in 2012 for release
in, say, 2013 or 2014.
Martin
Michael
> On Jun 24, 11:32 am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 24, 11:08 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Have you factored in the cost of the previous failed GL films?
>>>
>>>Okay, look, Duggy, I'm having trouble following your point.
>>>Twice Warners failed to make a new Superman movie (first with Tim
>>>Burton and then with Abrams). They still made Superman Returns.
>>
>>After a long break between attempts.
>>
>>
>>>There was at least one failed GL project that I know of (with Jack
>>>Black). They still made the Green Lantern movie.
>>
>>That one was in pre-pre-production.
>>
>>
>>>If anything, the fact that they try and fail to make a movie is an
>>>indication that they will eventually make one so I expect Justice
>>>League, Wonder Woman, Flash and Green Arrow movies eventually.
>>
>>Kennedy - who Time Warner hated and didn't want to use - was still
>>talking about making it until late 2010 when he admitted it won't
>>happen.
>
>
> Kennedy Miller Mitchell? The guy who was supposed to do Justice
> League, Babe 3 and Happy Feet 3 with George Miller? None of those
> films have come out.
Well Happy Feet 2 has yet to come out.
Who is this person> I do see them on IMdb.
>>When AOL/Time Warner are free of contractual obligations to
>>him, the they can start on the next attempt.
>
>
> I know you try to sound as if you know what you are talking about but,
> frankly, my understanding was that this was supposed to be an animated
> movie made with motion capture technology. As there have already been
> animated Justice League movies produced in the meantime, I don't see
> why they can't do a live action Justice League movie. It's already
> 2011. The Superman and Batman movies come out in 2012. There's no
> way a contract with Mitchel and Miller from 2008 is going to prevent
> them from starting pre-production on a JLA movie in 2012 for release
> in, say, 2013 or 2014.
If there's some sort of year specified in the contracts (like the
studios who do the X-Films and Spider-Films, which is why they pumped
out First Class, are pumping out the new Spider-Man movie, and why the
studio in question (Fox?) are trying their damndest to get out a new FF
movie, lest Marvel get the rights back) they might not be able to even
get into semi-serious talks with other people about helming a new
attempt at a JL movie. And why Roger Corman pumped out an FF movie that
ended up getting bought and buried.
Though things like that are usually between the studios and the licensor
of such properties.
I think.
Michael
Duggy
> On Jun 24, 11:32 am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > Kennedy - who Time Warner hated and didn't want to use - was still
> > talking about making it until late 2010 when he admitted it won't
> > happen.
> Kennedy Miller Mitchell?
Sorry, Miller. I remember when Kennedy died in a helicopter accident
years back. Not sure who the Mitchell in the production company name
is.
> The guy who was supposed to do Justice
> League, Babe 3 and Happy Feet 3 with George Miller? None of those
> films have come out.
Plus Mad Max 4 or Mad Max Reboot of Mad Man Animated. Miller has been
not doing a lot of films lately. One was JLA.
> I know you try to sound as if you know what you are talking about but,
> frankly, my understanding was that this was supposed to be an animated
> movie made with motion capture technology.
Huh? Why did they come to Australia to film it then?
It was live action.
> As there have already been
> animated Justice League movies produced in the meantime, I don't see
> why they can't do a live action Justice League movie.
Because they have to get past their agreement with Miller.
> It's already 2011.
So.
> The Superman and Batman movies come out in 2012.
And?
> There's no
> way a contract with Mitchel and Miller from 2008 is going to prevent
> them from starting pre-production on a JLA movie in 2012 for release
> in, say, 2013 or 2014.
Probably. Did stop them making one before now.
===
= DUG.
===
Martin Phipps
> On Jun 24, 2:28 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 24, 11:32 am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > Kennedy - who Time Warner hated and didn't want to use - was still
> > > talking about making it until late 2010 when he admitted it won't
> > > happen.
> > Kennedy Miller Mitchell?
>
> Sorry, Miller. I remember when Kennedy died in a helicopter accident
> years back. Not sure who the Mitchell in the production company name
> is.
>
> > The guy who was supposed to do Justice
> > League, Babe 3 and Happy Feet 3 with George Miller? None of those
> > films have come out.
>
> Plus Mad Max 4 or Mad Max Reboot of Mad Man Animated. Miller has been
> not doing a lot of films lately. One was JLA.
>
> > I know you try to sound as if you know what you are talking about but,
> > frankly, my understanding was that this was supposed to be an animated
> > movie made with motion capture technology.
>
> Huh? Why did they come to Australia to film it then?
>
> It was live action.
Justice League Movie to be CGI/Motion Capture?
http://www.filmwad.com/justice-league-movie-to-be-cgi-motion-capture--4211-p.html
Justice League to be Motion Capture CG?
http://www.canmag.com
Justice League is CGI/Motion Capture
www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=5493
Justice League going Motion Capture?
www.comicbookmovie.com/justice_league/news/?a=3882
Justice League of America to Be a CGI / Motion-Capture Film ...
http://www.movieweb.com/news/justice-league-of-america-to-be-a-cgi-motion-capture-film
Motion Capture Justice League of America a Major Overstatement?
http://www.aceshowbiz.com
News: More rumors about the 'Justice League' being a motion ...
www.mania.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-13596.html
Justice League To Be Motion Capture?
www.darkhorizons.com/news/8629/justice-league-to-be-motion-capture
> > As there have already been
> > animated Justice League movies produced in the meantime, I don't see
> > why they can't do a live action Justice League movie.
>
> Because they have to get past their agreement with Miller.
>
> > It's already 2011.
>
> So.
>
> > The Superman and Batman movies come out in 2012.
>
> And?
>
> > There's no
> > way a contract with Mitchel and Miller from 2007 is going to prevent
> > them from starting pre-production on a JLA movie in 2012 for release
> > in, say, 2013 or 2014.
>
> Probably. Did stop them making one before now.
What about Justice League: The New Frontier (2008) and Justice League:
Crisis on Two Earths (2010)? Apparently there has been nothing to
stop Warners from putting out animated JLA movies.
Martin
Duggy
> On Jun 24, 1:48 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > It was live action.
> Justice League Movie to be CGI/Motion Capture?http://www.filmwad.com/justice-league-movie-to-be-cgi-motion-capture-...
Their source: IESB.
The post also says it was planned as a live action film: "production
is gearing away from a live action film"
> Justice League to be Motion Capture CG?http://www.canmag.com
No article.
> Justice League is CGI/Motion Capturewww.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=5493
Their source: IESB.
"a rumor that the upcoming "Justice League of America" film might be
completely CGI/Motion Capture."
> Justice League going Motion Capture?www.comicbookmovie.com/justice_league/news/?a=3882
Their source: IESB.
> Justice League of America to Be a CGI / Motion-Capture Film ...http://www.movieweb.com/news/justice-league-of-america-to-be-a-cgi-mo...
Their source: IESB.
> Motion Capture Justice League of America a Major Overstatement?http://www.aceshowbiz.com
No article.
> News: More rumors about the 'Justice League' being a motion ...www.mania.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-13596.html
"all indicators are that the 'Justice League' will be a live-action
movie that makes heavy use of CGI"
> Justice League To Be Motion Capture?www.darkhorizons.com/news/8629/justice-league-to-be-motion-capture
Their source: IESB.
So you have one source and nothing that says it was never planned to
be Live Action... in fact most say it was planned to be live action
and nothing that says it was planned to be a straight-to-DVD
animation.
> > Probably. Did stop them making one before now.
> What about Justice League: The New Frontier (2008) and Justice League:
> Crisis on Two Earths (2010)? Apparently there has been nothing to
> stop Warners from putting out animated JLA movies.
Animated straight to DVD films.
Exactly. Different agreement. They bad Batman and Superman animated
DVD films at the same time that a Superman film & TV series and Batman
films were coming out.
But a theatrical release JLA film Live Action or rumoured by one
source CGI-motion capture isn't straight to DVD.
===
= DUG.
===
KalElFan
news:d023b5cb-06d5-41d1...@r21g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 23, 2:35 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Why not go straight into a Justice League movie?
>>
>> Because they spent a fuck load of money putting that into pre-
>> production in 2007-2008 and failed.
There's that, and the failed TV series pilot, and I think a Justice League
movie will always be inherently risky. Ideally, Superman, Batman,
Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, and Aquaman would all be
"worthy" parts of it. But in each case and with the whole Warners
faces issues.
For example in a 120 minute movie each character can only get so much
screen time. There has to be a worthy threat for all of them combined.
Do they cast unknowns or use stars who've played the role first in that
character's own movie (or TV series)? Will they even have Superman post-
2012? Do they want to risk their Batman franchise? If the Justice League
movie fails they risk nuking everything.
Much better to establish the characters first I think, as Marvel has done.
Have a Wonder Woman, Flash, and Aquaman movie, but with very strict
budget caps, e.g. $125-$150 million including marketing.
Speaking of Green Lantern, prepare for more whining in the press and
on the net about it being a failure because its box office dropped 65.5%
this weekend. Forget that X-Men Last Stand, X-Men Wolverine, the
first Hulk, Watchmen, one of the Twilight and Matrix movies and a
bunch of other movies all dropped worse. In fact Green Lantern won't
even make the "top" 100 movies in percentage drops. That's not what
matters. What matters is what a few dipshits on twitter proclaim. :-/
Green Lantern is already Warners second highest grossing movie of
the year (after Hangover). It'll be #3 once the Potter movie comes out.
The issue is the cost of the movie. Warners and any studio would love
to have movie franchises that can gross $100M++ domestic and that
or more overseas, and have an aftermarket. They just can't spend
$300 million on them and turn the whole thing into an Attack of the
Dipshits show.
Adam H. Kerman
>Speaking of Green Lantern, prepare for more whining in the press and
>on the net about it being a failure because its box office dropped 65.5%
>this weekend. Forget that X-Men Last Stand, X-Men Wolverine, the
>first Hulk, Watchmen, one of the Twilight and Matrix movies and a
>bunch of other movies all dropped worse. In fact Green Lantern won't
>even make the "top" 100 movies in percentage drops. That's not what
>matters. What matters is what a few dipshits on twitter proclaim. :-/
Uh, wouldn't it be clever if you ever figured out how to ignore
ignorant press? You complain with every single movie.
When it comes to a movie, reviews are irrelevant. Your opinion is
irrelevant. The most important question: Was I entertained?
Duggy
Hmm, thought so.
Typical Martin Phipps behaviour. Lie and then hide like a coward when
he's caught lying.
===
= DUG.
===
KalElFan
news:09ve0757376lmlg56...@4ax.com...
> WB still wants a sequel
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-bros-pursue-green-lantern-205703
WB was right to support the movie by leaking that, but they also said
the same with Superman Returns for months and months and we never
got one.
Effective yesterday, when GL's daily box office collapsed even more than
any of the pundits could have predicted, it's apparent that its domestic
box office won't even get to $125 million. It should get past $100M this
weekend so it'll go safely beyond that, and I think it'll do better than
$100M overseas. But these just aren't numbers that are likely to lead
to any "conventional" Green Lantern sequel. Nor do I think it warrants
immediately jumping to a Justice League movie.
A movie with Green Lantern and Supergirl, and Sinestro the villain,
would I think be their best bet. It could also include a proto-JL setup
or teaser in a scene or two. In the meantime have Wonder Woman,
Flash and Aquaman movies, and then Justice League, greenlighted
with release dates scheduled for all of these during that 2013-2016
period. Restrict budgets so there isn't much downside.
If they approach it that way, especially the lower budgets because
I think high budgets set up all the negativity among critics and the
media, fans could just look forward to a series of DC movies that
don't have astronomical expectations.
Professor Bubba
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> "David" wrote in message
> news:09ve0757376lmlg56...@4ax.com...
>
> > WB still wants a sequel
> >
> > http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-bros-pursue-green-lantern-20570
> > 3
>
> WB was right to support the movie by leaking that, but they also said
> the same with Superman Returns for months and months and we never
> got one.
And you just wait. There might be a battle (if Singer wants one) about
whether the new film is (legally speaking) a sequel to Superman Returns
or not. I used to haunt the Superman Homepage, but left when it became
clear that the people running it didn't seem to know much about how
this stuff works, and didn't care to hear from those who did.
Despite what they thought over there, Singer never had a deal for a
sequel. What he had was a penalty clause that said he, Singer, would
receive a fat fee if he was not the one to direct the sequel. That's a
big difference. (The fee has been reported, not reliably, as somewhere
between $4 million and $22 million.) Man of Steel will be, to my eye,
a fresh start. I suspect Singer won't make a point of it, but who
knows?
> Effective yesterday, when GL's daily box office collapsed even more than
> any of the pundits could have predicted, it's apparent that its domestic
> box office won't even get to $125 million. It should get past $100M this
> weekend so it'll go safely beyond that, and I think it'll do better than
> $100M overseas. But these just aren't numbers that are likely to lead
> to any "conventional" Green Lantern sequel. Nor do I think it warrants
> immediately jumping to a Justice League movie.
Agreed. They're also going to want to see how Avengers does. They
have never tried this kind of thing with an A-list cast, most of which
has already been established as the various heroes in a number of films
that belonged to them individually.
I don't think Warner is going to agree to do a sequel to a $300 million
film that grossed only $125 million domestic, even if they can lay off
some of the costs of the first film onto a second. They might try a
fresh approach in a few years, or a team-up. The fanboy in me wants to
see Hal Jordan's GL and Barry Allen's Flash together.
I'm sorry the GL movie tanked, as I was rooting for it. I've been
reading GL since Showcase, and I've always loved GL and the Corps. I
thought it was the best thing in comics.
Martin Phipps
You do realize that nobody has been able to post from google groups
for four days? No?
So what was the lie? The Justice League movie was rumored to be a
motion capture movie. Then suddenly it was gone. I guess we'll never
know. Meanwhile there have been plenty of Justice League cartoons.
You asked for sources. I gave you plenty. You claim they can't make
another Justice League movie because they had a contract with George
Miller back in 2007. I showed quite clearly that they can.
It's time for the lying piece of shit asshole who calls himself Duggy
to either put up or shut up.
Martin
Duggy
> You do realize that nobody has been able to post from google groups
> for four days? No?
Yes. And you managed to reply to other posts.
> So what was the lie? The Justice League movie was rumored to be a
> motion capture movie.
You said it was "supposed to be" not "was rumoured to be"
> Then suddenly it was gone.
No, it was gone over a long period long after that rumour was put to
bed.
Because they hired the same motion capture company they used for
Superman Returns doesn't mean that it was going to be a fully CG
animated film.
> I guess we'll never know.
Sure. If you believe a guess made by IESB staff.
> Meanwhile there have been plenty of Justice League cartoons.
Straight to DVD tradition animation.
> You asked for sources. I gave you plenty.
Alll quoting IESB and most saying it was dubious.
> You claim they can't make another Justice League movie because they had a contract with George
> Miller back in 2007.
From 2006 on. 2010 is when he finally admitted that it wasn't going
to happen so maybe that's when his contract expired. He was still
claiming it was possible until then. Maybe he still has a contract
and has just accepted the fact that Warner doesn't want to make it
with him.
> I showed quite clearly that they can.
How? Miller had a contract for a theatrical released JLA film.
Straight to DVD films are a different thing.
> It's time for the lying piece of shit asshole who calls himself Duggy
> to either put up or shut up.
My parents call me Duggy and you're resorted to calling me a piece of
shit because you have no real arguement left and have to resort
calling me a piece of shit to hide the fact that you know you're
wrong.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> WB was right to support the movie by leaking that, but they also said
> the same with Superman Returns for months and months and we never
> got one.
They're still working on the next Superman film based on the box
office of the previous Superman film. The box office was massive.
Not good for the cost of production but if they could get similar
numbers for a cheaper film then they're happy to make a new one. So
they legitimately talked about a sequel. Then they consider a new
franchise with the makers of the Batman films and went with that
instead.
Let's not forget Hollywood accounting and the fact the film made more
for Time Warner than we know and cost less.
> Effective yesterday, when GL's daily box office collapsed even more than
> any of the pundits could have predicted, it's apparent that its domestic
> box office won't even get to $125 million. It should get past $100M this
> weekend so it'll go safely beyond that, and I think it'll do better than
> $100M overseas. But these just aren't numbers that are likely to lead
> to any "conventional" Green Lantern sequel. Nor do I think it warrants
> immediately jumping to a Justice League movie.
Justice League film would cost more than a, say, The Flash film. Far
better to try another solo film and see what that gets you. The Flash
should have a smaller budget that GL so if it got similar numbers it
should do OK.
> A movie with Green Lantern and Supergirl,
Huh?
> If they approach it that way, especially the lower budgets because
> I think high budgets set up all the negativity among critics and the
> media, fans could just look forward to a series of DC movies that
> don't have astronomical expectations.
Critics, maybe, care about the cost. But fans care about the product.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Despite what they thought over there, Singer never had a deal for a
> sequel. What he had was a penalty clause that said he, Singer, would
> receive a fat fee if he was not the one to direct the sequel. That's a
> big difference. (The fee has been reported, not reliably, as somewhere
> between $4 million and $22 million.) Man of Steel will be, to my eye,
> a fresh start. I suspect Singer won't make a point of it, but who
> knows?
True. Even film that isn't a sequel plot-wise could be argued to be a
sequel business-wise as the box-office of SR got the new film
greenlit.
> Agreed. They're also going to want to see how Avengers does. They
> have never tried this kind of thing with an A-list cast, most of which
> has already been established as the various heroes in a number of films
> that belonged to them individually.
True.
> I don't think Warner is going to agree to do a sequel to a $300 million
> film that grossed only $125 million domestic, even if they can lay off
> some of the costs of the first film onto a second.
Domestic is meaningless. $200 million worldwide is a guess. So if
someone can make them a sequel for less than $100 mil they'd look
seriously at it.
> They might try a
> fresh approach in a few years, or a team-up. The fanboy in me wants to
> see Hal Jordan's GL and Barry Allen's Flash together.
I've been thinking about that. After a JLA film a few team-up films
would be fun.
Any thoughts?
Green Arrow/Black Canary.
Green Lantern/The Flash.
Green Arrow/Green Lantern.
Batman/Superman.
> I'm sorry the GL movie tanked, as I was rooting for it. I've been
> reading GL since Showcase, and I've always loved GL and the Corps. I
> thought it was the best thing in comics.
$200 million isn't tanking. It's just not good when productions
estimates are $200 - 300 million.
===
= DUG.
===
Martin Phipps
> On Jul 1, 11:30 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You do realize that nobody has been able to post from google groups
> > for four days? No?
>
> Yes. And you managed to reply to other posts.
Nope. Posts were not showing up. There was nothing to reply to.
I'm still waiting for you to show that they can't do a Justice League
movie. Oh. Wait. You just admitted "maybe... his contract
expired". So you really didn't know and just pretended you did. I
call that being a lying piece of shit.
You called me a lying coward. If you can't take it then don't try to
dish it out.
Martin
Duggy
> On Jul 1, 5:44 pm, Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes. And you managed to reply to other posts.
> Nope. Posts were not showing up. There was nothing to reply to.
I used google, too, posts showed up a lot more than you're pretending.
> I'm still waiting for you to show that they can't do a Justice League
> movie. Oh. Wait. You just admitted "maybe... his contract
> expired".
He still had one in August last year so they couldn't do one without
him until then. Maybe they can do one now, but they couldn't do it
before GL like you claim.
> So you really didn't know
I don't know if he still has one.
> I call that being a lying piece of shit.
Learn to read.
> You called me a lying coward.
Yes.
> If you can't take it then don't try to
> dish it out.
I called you a coward. You called me a piece of shit.
Not in the same league. But you'd know that if you were a human and
not a pus-like vaginal discharge that your mother should have washed
off instead of dressing and sending to school.
===
= DUG.
===
Twerpinator
> On Jul 3, 10:53 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 5:44 pm, Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Yes. And you managed to reply to other posts.
> > Nope. Posts were not showing up. There was nothing to reply to.
>
> I used google, too, posts showed up a lot more than you're pretending.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Duggy?
> > I'm still waiting for you to show that they can't do a Justice League
> > movie. Oh. Wait. You just admitted "maybe... his contract
> > expired".
>
> He still had one in August last year so they couldn't do one without
> him until then. Maybe they can do one now, but [calls me a liar]
No, you're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or
implied about me are at all true.
> > So you really didn't know
>
> I don't know if he still has one.
Your admission of ignorance is noted for the record.
> > I call that being a lying piece of shit.
>
> [implied insult deleted]
No, you're the idiot. None of the nasty things that you have said or
implied about me are at all true.
> > You called me a lying coward.
>
> Yes.
Your admission of being a jerk is noted for the record.
> > If you can't take it then don't try to
> > dish it out.
>
> I called you a [insult deleted].
Which was wrong.
> You called me a piece of shit.
Which was correct.
> Not in the same league.
Indeed. "Coward" is the much worse insult, since people might actually
believe it whereas they are unlikely to believe you are literally
composed of fecal matter. (And yet, truth is sometimes stranger than
fiction ...)
> But you'd know that if you were a human and
> not a [vicious insult deleted!]
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have
said or implied about me are at all true.
Duggy
> What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
> with television, Duggy?
I have made no unsubstantiated or erroneous claims, so nothing.
> None of the nasty things that you have said or
> implied about me are at all true.
Except all of them.
> > > So you really didn't know
> > I don't know if he still has one.
> Your admission of ignorance is noted for the record.
All of yours have been, too.
> No, you're the idiot.
I know you are, but what am I?
> Your admission of being a jerk is noted for the record.
I never admited to being a jerk, just to stating the obvious truth.
> Indeed. "Coward" is the much worse insult,
It's not an insult if it is true.
And it is.
> But you'd know that if you were a human and
> > not a [vicious insult deleted!]
> the nasty things that you have
> said or implied about me are at all true.
I know that.
===
= DUG.
===
Twerpinator
> On Jul 4, 6:23 am, Twerpinator <twerpina...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
> > with television, Duggy?
>
> I have made no unsubstantiated or erroneous claims,
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Duggy?
> so nothing.
What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with
television, Duggy?
> > None of the nasty things that you have said or
> > implied about me are at all true.
>
> Except
Except nothing. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied
about me are at all true.
> > > > So you really didn't know
> > > I don't know if he still has one.
> > Your admission of ignorance is noted for the record.
>
> All of yours have been, too.
All zero of them.
> > No, you're the idiot.
>
> I know [insult deleted], but what am I?
No, you're the idiot. None of the nasty things that you have said or
implied about me are at all true.
> > Your admission of being a jerk is noted for the record.
>
> I never admited to being a jerk,
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Duggy?
> just to stating the obvious truth.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Duggy?
> > Indeed. "Coward" is the much worse insult,
>
> It's not an insult if it is true.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Duggy?
> And [insult deleted]
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
> [misquotes me; implied insult deleted]
Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted
material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> I know that.
Duggy
> On Jul 4, 4:36 am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Jul 4, 6:23 am, Twerpinator <twerpina...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
> > > with television, Duggy?
> > I have made no unsubstantiated or erroneous claims,
> What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
> with television, Duggy?
I have made no unsubstantiated or erroneous claims,
> > so nothing.
> What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with
> television, Duggy?
I have made no unsubstantiated or erroneous claims,
> > > None of the nasty things that you have said or
> > > implied about me are at all true.
> > Except
> Except nothing. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied
> about me are at all true.
Except all of them.
> > > > > So you really didn't know
> > > > I don't know if he still has one.
> > > Your admission of ignorance is noted for the record.
> > All of yours have been, too.
> All zero of them.
Really? Was Rocketeer ever a comic?
> > > No, you're the idiot.
> > I know [insult deleted], but what am I?
> No, you're the idiot.
I know you are, but what am I?
> None of the nasty things that you have said or
> implied about me are at all true.
Except all of them.
> What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
> with television, Duggy?
I have made no unsubstantiated or erroneous claims,
> What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
> with television, Duggy?
I have made no unsubstantiated or erroneous claims,
> > > Indeed. "Coward" is the much worse insult,
> > It's not an insult if it is true.
> What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
> with television, Duggy?
I have made no unsubstantiated or erroneous claims.
> > And [insult deleted]
> No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
> are at all true.
Except all of them.
> > [misquotes me; implied insult deleted]
> Do
> misquote me again.
OK.
> Your post contained supposed "quoted
> material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
> summarize material that did.
The material did, but words were editted to change the meaning.
Just a little fun between friends.
> That is incorrect.
Incorrect is a bad usage in that context.
> Stop being dishonest.
I know you are, but what am I?
> None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
> all true.
Except all of them.
> What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
> with television, Duggy?
I have made no unsubstantiated or erroneous claims,
Thank you for removing the TV-crossposts that some moron added.
===
= DUG.
===
Twerpinator
>
> > What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
> > with television, Duggy?
>
> I have made no unsubstantiated or erroneous claims,
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Duggy?
> so nothing.
What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with
television, Duggy?
> > None of the nasty things that you have said or
> > implied about me are at all true.
>
> Except
Except nothing. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied
about me are at all true.
> > > > So you really didn't know
> > > I don't know if he still has one.
> > Your admission of ignorance is noted for the record.
>
> All of yours have been, too.
All zero of them.
> > No, you're the idiot.
>
> I know [insult deleted], but what am I?
No, you're the idiot. None of the nasty things that you have said or
implied about me are at all true.
> > Your admission of being a jerk is noted for the record.
>
> I never admited to being a jerk,
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Duggy?
> just to stating the obvious truth.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Duggy?
> > Indeed. "Coward" is the much worse insult,
>
> It's not an insult if it is true.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Duggy?
> And [insult deleted]
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
> [misquotes me; implied insult deleted]
Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted
material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> I know that.
Twerpinator
> On Jul 4, 7:59 pm, Twerpinator <twerpina...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 4, 4:36 am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > On Jul 4, 6:23 am, Twerpinator <twerpina...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
> > > > with television, Duggy?
> > > I have made no unsubstantiated or erroneous claims,
> > What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
> > with television, Duggy?
No, you're the liar.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> > > so nothing.
> > What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with
> > television, Duggy?
>
> [calls me a liar]
No, you're the liar.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> > > > None of the nasty things that you have said or
> > > > implied about me are at all true.
> > > Except
> > Except nothing. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied
> > about me are at all true.
>
> Except
Except nothing. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied
about me are at all true.
> > > > > > So you really didn't know
> > > > > I don't know if he still has one.
> > > > Your admission of ignorance is noted for the record.
> > > All of yours have been, too.
> > All zero of them.
> Really? Was Rocketeer ever a comic?
What does your question have to do with Smallville or current films,
Duggy?
> > > > No, you're the idiot.
> > > I know [insult deleted], but what am I?
> > No, you're the idiot.
>
> I know [insult deleted], but what am I?
No, you're the idiot.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> > None of the nasty things that you have said or
> > implied about me are at all true.
>
> Except
Except nothing. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied
about me are at all true.
> > What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
> > with television, Duggy?
>
> [calls me a liar]
No, you're the liar.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> > What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
> > with television, Duggy?
>
> [calls me a liar]
No, you're the liar.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> > > > Indeed. "Coward" is the much worse insult,
> > > It's not an insult if it is true.
> > What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
> > with television, Duggy?
>
> [calls me a liar]
No, you're the liar.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> > > And [insult deleted]
> > No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
> > are at all true.
>
> Except
Except nothing. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied
about me are at all true.
> > > [misquotes me; implied insult deleted]
> [misquotes me]
Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted
material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
summarize material that did. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
> OK.
Classic contradiction, since you did it again.
> > Your post contained supposed "quoted
> > material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor
> > summarize material that did.
>
> The material did, but words were editted to change the meaning.
Classic dishonesty on your part, Duggy.
> Just a little fun between friends.
What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with
Smallville, DC comics, or current films, Duggy?
> > That is incorrect.
>
> [implied insult deleted]
No, you're the bad one.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> > Stop being dishonest.
>
> [calls me a liar]
No, you're the liar.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> > None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
> > all true.
>
> Except
Except nothing. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied
about me are at all true.
> > What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
> > with television, Duggy?
>
> [calls me a liar]
No, you're the liar.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> Thank you for removing the TV-crossposts that some moron added.
What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with
Smallville, DC comics, or current films, Duggy?
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===
What does that have to do with Smallville, DC comics, or current
films, Duggy?
Anim8rFSK
<bda689d2-4d47-4c95...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> Really? Was Rocketeer ever a comic?
Oh, ouch, really? Just one of the bestest comics *ever*. Dave Stevens
drew himself as The Rocketeer, and Billy Campbell was a dead ringer for
him, if a mirror image one. Stevens worked on the movie and gave them
detailed plans of stuff like the Bulldog Cafe.
The Rocketeer would have been *way* better had they stuck closer to the
source, but Katzenberg was determined to ruin the film. Granted there
were rights problems with a lot of the original material; in the comics
the rocket pack is invented by Doc Savage, who (in what I think was a
brilliant turn) was replace by Howard Hughes for the film. But give me
a Peevy who is, well, peevy (Lloyd Bridges would have been excellent)
and a Jenny who is Bettie (IIRC it was the writer of the novelization
who said they had to change Bettie's name to Jenny so Jennifer Connely
wouldn't miss her cues, meow).
A tribute book with new material began publishing last month, and the
original is still available in collection form.
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
Martin Phipps
> I called you a coward. You called me a piece of shit.
On Jun 29, 4:49 pm, Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Typical Martin Phipps behaviour. Lie and then hide like a coward when
> he's caught lying.
Lying again, Duggy? That's what you do, isn't it? You're just a turd
floating in a toilet bowl who finds it impossible to tell the truth.
Deal with it.
Martin
Duggy
> What does that have to do with Smallville, DC comics, or current
> films, Duggy?
What does what have to do with Smallville, DC comics, or current
films?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
I clearly called you a coward.
How is saying I did a lie?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > Really? Was Rocketeer ever a comic?
> Oh, ouch, really? Just one of the bestest comics *ever*.
Yes, Martin actually claimed that it was never a comic.
> The Rocketeer would have been *way* better had they stuck closer to the
> source, but Katzenberg was determined to ruin the film. Granted there
> were rights problems with a lot of the original material; in the comics
> the rocket pack is invented by Doc Savage, who (in what I think was a
> brilliant turn) was replace by Howard Hughes for the film. But give me
> a Peevy who is, well, peevy (Lloyd Bridges would have been excellent)
> and a Jenny who is Bettie (IIRC it was the writer of the novelization
> who said they had to change Bettie's name to Jenny so Jennifer Connely
> wouldn't miss her cues, meow).
OK, but it gave as another look at 40s-&-50s Jennifer Connely. And
you've got to love looking at 40s-&-50s Jennifer Connely.
Mulholland Falls sucked. Ultra-hard. But the above rule applies.
> A tribute book with new material began publishing last month, and the
> original is still available in collection form.
Cool.
===
= DUG.
===
Martin Phipps
You first. You tell me where I was lying. You said I was lying.
That was your second lie. The first was pretending you had any clue
what you were talking about.
Licensing is very complicated. You have TV rights, DVD rights, movie
rights and then you have live action and cartoons. Marvel was allowed
to license the X-Men to Warner Brothers so they could make X-Men
Evolution even though Fox still owned the license to make live action
movies. Marvel even put out the TV show Mutant X which was a blatant
riff of the X-Men and Fox didn't like that but there wasn't much that
Fox could do. Miller may have had a contract to do a Justice League
movie but DC still owned the rights to the individual characters and
Miller wasn't able to stop Warners from releasing two Justice League
cartoons in the meantime. We'll never know the entire story but
Warners may have been so disappointed with Miller's pre-production
work on the Justice League movie that they simply decided not to
support it. If that means that they had to wait until Miller's
contract to do a live action movie expired then so be it but it won't
stop them from doing a Justice League movie in the future. Indeed,
the Hulk character very quickly reverted back to Marvel after
Universal decided not to do a sequel to Hulk and Marvel was able to do
their own Hulk movie. The contract Warners had with Miller obviously
even have been as binding as Marvel's contracts with other studios:
Miller didn't own the rights to any of the individual characters.
Obviously Miller's contract didn't stop Warners from making Batman,
Superman or Green Lantern movies or the Wonder Woman TV show. It
didn't stop the CW from making Smallville and having Clark refer to
his friends as "The League". Basically then we're only going by your
claim that Warners couldn't make a live action Justice League movie.
And why should anybody trust you now?
Martin
Duggy
> You first. You tell me where I was lying. You said I was lying.
> That was your second lie. The first was pretending you had any clue
> what you were talking about.
You said that the claim that there were multiple sources for the claim
that the JL film was to be animated.
There was one, IESB. All of the others were careful to say that it
was speculation by IESB nothing more.
> Licensing is very complicated.
Yes.
> Miller may have had a contract to do a Justice League
> movie but DC still owned the rights to the individual characters and
> Miller wasn't able to stop Warners from releasing two Justice League
> cartoons in the meantime.
Exactly.
> We'll never know the entire story but
> Warners may have been so disappointed with Miller's pre-production
> work on the Justice League movie that they simply decided not to
> support it.
It seems so.
> If that means that they had to wait until Miller's
> contract to do a live action movie expired then so be it but it won't
> stop them from doing a Justice League movie in the future.
Never said if would. I said it stopped them having made one now.
> Basically then we're only going by your
> claim that Warners couldn't make a live action Justice League movie.
Exactly so. When they had a contract with Miller they couldn't make
one without him.
> And why should anybody trust you now?
Because you seem to have spent this entire post agreeing with me.
===
= DUG.
===
Martin Phipps
> On Jul 5, 3:06 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You first. You tell me where I was lying. You said I was lying.
> > That was your second lie. The first was pretending you had any clue
> > what you were talking about.
>
> You said that the claim that there were multiple sources for the claim
> that the JL film was to be animated.
>
> There was one, IESB. All of the others were careful to say that it
> was speculation by IESB nothing more.
I said that the film was "supposed to be" a motion capture movie and
according to the IESB it was. Actually I first heard about that on
joblo.com but a link to the joblo.com article didn't come up when I
used google to search. I might also have read about it on
superherohype.com. If the original source was the IESB then that
really doesn't matter because the next thing I heard it wasn't going
to happen. The official explanation was the writer's strike but it
might also have been the fact that it was set to star Adrian Brody who
up to that point had only been in the O.C. and wasn't a big enough
star to headline a movie: http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/justice-league-abandoned_1056570
The rumors about motion capture probably didn't help either: the movie
was getting bad press while it was still in pre-production.
That being said, it's still listed on the imdb for 2103 and described
here: http://www.justiceleaguemovie.net/ and the president of Warner
Brothers, Jeff Robinov, would like to see it happen according to
http://movies.ign.com/articles/115/1158220p1.html but it supposedly
isn't going to happen because http://io9.com/5659404/no-plans-for-a-justice-league-movie-says-geoff-johns
Mind you, the Jeff Robinov quote is more up to date than the Geoff
Johns quote so it might happen anyway. According to
http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie/270997/justice-league-mortal/news/
Ryan Reynolds is not involved but after the box office failure of
Green Lantern it might make sense to ask Ryan Reynolds to star as the
Green Lantern but that he shouldn't expect and eight figure salary.
For that matter, there's no need for them to hire a different actor to
play Superman if Cavill turns out to be popular in the role.
> > Licensing is very complicated.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Miller may have had a contract to do a Justice League
> > movie but DC still owned the rights to the individual characters and
> > Miller wasn't able to stop Warners from releasing two Justice League
> > cartoons in the meantime.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > We'll never know the entire story but
> > Warners may have been so disappointed with Miller's pre-production
> > work on the Justice League movie that they simply decided not to
> > support it.
>
> It seems so.
>
> > If that means that they had to wait until Miller's
> > contract to do a live action movie expired then so be it but it won't
> > stop them from doing a Justice League movie in the future.
>
> Never said if would. I said it stopped them having made one now.
Actually, you did say that it would. You said they couldn't make a
Justice League movie.
On Jun 23, 10:48 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > As there have already been
> > animated Justice League movies produced in the meantime, I don't see
> > why they can't do a live action Justice League movie.
>
> Because they have to get past their agreement with Miller.
To be fair, later in the same post you said "probably". But then
there was this earlier comment.
On Jun 23, 3:29 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 10:26 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I asked you first. If Warners doesn't want to go ahead with a JLA
> > movie because they couldn't get one off the ground during the writer's
> > strike
>
> The writer's strike was a bluff. They had a massive fight with
> Kennedy.
As long as we are being "honest" and one of us is providing
references, I have to wonder if you have a source for this, especially
as you later admitted
On Jun 23, 10:48 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2:28 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 24, 11:32 am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > Kennedy - who Time Warner hated and didn't want to use - was still
> > > talking about making it until late 2010 when he admitted it won't
> > > happen.
> > Kennedy Miller Mitchell?
>
> Sorry, Miller.
So whom did Warner Brothers have an argument with, Miller or Kennedy?
Was there even an argument at all?
> > Basically then we're only going by your
> > claim that Warners couldn't make a live action Justice League movie.
>
> Exactly so. When they had a contract with Miller they couldn't make
> one without him.
>
> > And why should anybody trust you now?
>
> Because you seem to have spent this entire post agreeing with me.
"Yes", "Exactly" and "It seems so" were what you said.
Which begs the question: if you agree with everything I'm saying then
when exactly was I supposed to have lied and ran away?
Martin
Duggy
> I said that the film was "supposed to be" a motion capture movie and
> according to the IESB it was.
No, IESB thought it might me because they were looking at motion
capture companies, including the one that did motion capture for
Superman Returns.
> The official explanation was the writer's strike but it
> might also have been the fact that it was set to star Adrian Brody who
> up to that point had only been in the O.C. and wasn't a big enough
> star to headline a movie:http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/justice-league-abandoned_1...
> The rumors about motion capture probably didn't help either: the movie
> was getting bad press while it was still in pre-production.
It may have been the fight between Miller and Warner than both deny
but insiders said happened.
> That being said, it's still listed on the imdb for 2103 and described
> here:http://www.justiceleaguemovie.net/and the president of Warner
> Brothers, Jeff Robinov, would like to see it happen according tohttp://movies.ign.com/articles/115/1158220p1.htmlbut it supposedly
> isn't going to happen becausehttp://io9.com/5659404/no-plans-for-a-justice-league-movie-says-geoff...
> Mind you, the Jeff Robinov quote is more up to date than the Geoff
> Johns quote so it might happen anyway. According tohttp://www.reelzchannel.com/movie/270997/justice-league-mortal/news/
> Ryan Reynolds is not involved but after the box office failure of
> Green Lantern it might make sense to ask Ryan Reynolds to star as the
> Green Lantern but that he shouldn't expect and eight figure salary.
> For that matter, there's no need for them to hire a different actor to
> play Superman if Cavill turns out to be popular in the role.
These things jump back and forth. Geoff is part of the GL team so
he's probably looking at GL2 or another solo film. Jeff is at the top
of the tree and is looking at what he wants to happen, but may not
happen if those lower than him can't get it together. Ryan Reynolds
can still demand his usual salary. They'll just have to recast.
> > Never said if would. I said it stopped them having made one now.
> Actually, you did say that it would. You said they couldn't make a
> Justice League movie.
So they made GL instead.
> So whom did Warner Brothers have an argument with, Miller or Kennedy?
> Was there even an argument at all?
Miller. Kennedy died in a helicopter accident years ago.
> > Because you seem to have spent this entire post agreeing with me.
> "Yes", "Exactly" and "It seems so" were what you said.
Because you re-enforced my points.
> Which begs the question: if you agree with everything I'm saying then
> when exactly was I supposed to have lied and ran away?
Because you said there were plenty of sources claiming that JLA was a
motion capture animated film. The was one that was clearly guessing.
You also said that making straight to DVD animated films proved that
they could make theatrical release films.
Are those true?
===
= DUG.
===
Martin Phipps
> Because you said there were plenty of sources claiming that JLA was a
> motion capture animated film. The was one that was clearly guessing.
There were plenty of sources saying it was true. If one gay says,
say, that Obama is gay and several people repeat that Obama is gay
then we have several people saying Obama is gay. This doesn't mean
Obama is gay but if somebody says "according to several people Obama
is gay" then THAT is a true statement. I said that it was "supposed
to be" a motion capture film and I showed that there were plenty of
websites saying that it was.
> You also said that making straight to DVD animated films proved that
> they could make theatrical release films.
They still retained the rights to the characters and could do
Superman, Batman and Green Lantern movies. They could have Superman,
Aquaman, Green Arrow, Martian Manhunter, Hawkman, Supergirl and the
Black Canary appear on Smallville. All I see from you is speculation
that George Miller's contract prevented them from doing a Justice
League movie when in fact they've been saying for some time that they
decided not to go ahead with a Justice League movie because they
didn't want to appear to be "copying" what Marvel was doing with the
Avengers.
The fact that they were able to release direct to video animated
Justice League movies does suggest that they could have done a Justice
League movie if they wanted to. They may have had to have paid George
Miller as a penalty for breaking their contract with him but he
clearly couldn't stop them from using their own characters and putting
them in movies or on TV or on video.
Martin
Duggy
> There were plenty of sources saying it was true.
All of the sources you proved didn't. They said the it was a rumour
started by IESB.
> I said that it was "supposed
> to be" a motion capture film and I showed that there were plenty of
> websites saying that it was.
You are yet to prove one.
> They still retained the rights to the characters and could do
> Superman, Batman and Green Lantern movies.
Yes, they did.
> They could have Superman,
> Aquaman, Green Arrow, Martian Manhunter, Hawkman, Supergirl and the
> Black Canary appear on Smallville.
Yes, but not Batman.
> All I see from you is speculation
> that George Miller's contract prevented them from doing a Justice
> League movie when in fact they've been saying for some time that they
> decided not to go ahead with a Justice League movie because they
> didn't want to appear to be "copying" what Marvel was doing with the
> Avengers.
Really? When did they start saying that?
> The fact that they were able to release direct to video animated
> Justice League movies does suggest that they could have done a Justice
> League movie if they wanted to.
No, it shows they can to a straight to DVD JLA animation. It doesn't
say anything about theatrical releases.
> but he
> clearly couldn't stop them from using their own characters and putting
> them in movies or on TV or on video.
He could stop them making a JLA theatrical film without him.
===
= DUG.
===
Martin Phipps
> On Jul 6, 7:02 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > There were plenty of sources saying it was true.
>
> All of the sources you proved didn't. They said the it was a rumour
> started by IESB.
>
> > I said that it was "supposed
> > to be" a motion capture film and I showed that there were plenty of
> > websites saying that it was.
>
> You are yet to prove one.
Sorry? What?
If you mean _provide_ then you're lying again. When a headline says
"Justice League movie to be motion capture" then they are saying the
Justice League movie was going to be motion capture. Then they
provide the source as the IESB. The actual quote from the IESB was
"the real interesting thing about this is that the contract is for an
all-cgi "photo-real" motion capture movie, much like the upcoming
Beowulf" so they were pretty sure of themselves even if they were
wrong (which we will never know because for all we know Warner Bros
may have said no to motion capture).
> > They still retained the rights to the characters and could do
> > Superman, Batman and Green Lantern movies.
>
> Yes, they did.
>
> > They could have Superman,
> > Aquaman, Green Arrow, Martian Manhunter, Hawkman, Supergirl and the
> > Black Canary appear on Smallville.
>
> Yes, but not Batman.
Oh God. Are you now saying this was because of the contract with
George Miller? Maybe it was because there was a series of Batman
movies being done by Nolan.
> > All I see from you is speculation
> > that George Miller's contract prevented them from doing a Justice
> > League movie when in fact they've been saying for some time that they
> > decided not to go ahead with a Justice League movie because they
> > didn't want to appear to be "copying" what Marvel was doing with the
> > Avengers.
>
> Really? When did they start saying that?
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelFreshman/news/?a=21133
"Nelson and Johns say they're not out to copy Marvel and they view the
competition as friendly and motivational."
http://io9.com/5659404/no-plans-for-a-justice-league-movie-says-geoff-johns
"Avengers team-up film is generating mega-buzz, but DC has no plans to
follow suit with the Justice League, Geoff Johns told NYCC. Because
DC's characters are "bigger than Marvel's." He'd rather build them up
separately than "smashing them together.""
> > The fact that they were able to release direct to video animated
> > Justice League movies does suggest that they could have done a Justice
> > League movie if they wanted to.
>
> No, it shows they can to a straight to DVD JLA animation. It doesn't
> say anything about theatrical releases.
It shows that they retained the rights to the characters even as a
group.
> > but he
> > clearly couldn't stop them from using their own characters and putting
> > them in movies or on TV or on video.
>
> He could stop them making a JLA theatrical film without him.
Just saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. You haven't
cited a single reference and you keep asking me to provide mine. This
is getting tiresome.
The fact is that Warner Bros retained the rights to the characters
both individually and as a group. I see no evidence whatsoever that
they couldn't do whatever they damn well wanted with their
characters. If it meant paying off George Miller to fulfill contract
obligations then so be it. The fact is that the bad press that they
were getting would have affected any other live action Justice League
project they could have done would they have simply fired George
Miller and gone on with the movie with somebody else.
Martin
Duggy
> If you mean _provide_ then you're lying again. When a headline says
> "Justice League movie to be motion capture" then they are saying the
> Justice League movie was going to be motion capture. Then they
> provide the source as the IESB. The actual quote from the IESB was
> "the real interesting thing about this is that the contract is for an
> all-cgi "photo-real" motion capture movie, much like the upcoming
> Beowulf" so they were pretty sure of themselves even if they were
> wrong (which we will never know because for all we know Warner Bros
> may have said no to motion capture).
IESB may have been wrong and all of the others you provided suggested
that they were.
> > > They could have Superman,
> > > Aquaman, Green Arrow, Martian Manhunter, Hawkman, Supergirl and the
> > > Black Canary appear on Smallville.
> > Yes, but not Batman.
> Oh God. Are you now saying this was because of the contract with
> George Miller? Maybe it was because there was a series of Batman
> movies being done by Nolan.
I don't think it was the movies. I think someone had a live action TV
contract... or maybe DC was holding back on the TV contract.
> > > All I see from you is speculation
> > > that George Miller's contract prevented them from doing a Justice
> > > League movie when in fact they've been saying for some time that they
> > > decided not to go ahead with a Justice League movie because they
> > > didn't want to appear to be "copying" what Marvel was doing with the
> > > Avengers.
> > Really? When did they start saying that?
> http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelFreshman/news/?a=21133
> "Nelson and Johns say they're not out to copy Marvel and they view the
> competition as friendly and motivational."
No where in that story does it say that they aren't planning to make
JLA movie.
Just that they aren't planning to copy Marvel - which could mean a
number of things.
> http://io9.com/5659404/no-plans-for-a-justice-league-movie-says-geoff...
> "Avengers team-up film is generating mega-buzz, but DC has no plans to
> follow suit with the Justice League, Geoff Johns told NYCC. Because
> DC's characters are "bigger than Marvel's." He'd rather build them up
> separately than "smashing them together.""
No plans isn't "decided not to go ahead with a Justice League movie
because they didn't want to appear to be "copying" what Marvel".
Rather he says it's because he see the DC characters as bigger then
the Marvel characters and therefore more suited to solo films.
Twisting things to support your lie?
> > No, it shows they can to a straight to DVD JLA animation. It doesn't
> > say anything about theatrical releases.
> It shows that they retained the rights to the characters even as a
> group.
For straight to DVD films. Not theatrical releases.
> Just saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. You haven't
> cited a single reference and you keep asking me to provide mine. This
> is getting tiresome.
Good. Stop lying.
> The fact is that Warner Bros retained the rights to the characters
> both individually and as a group. I see no evidence whatsoever that
> they couldn't do whatever they damn well wanted with their
> characters.
Then you don't understand film making.
===
= DUG.
===
Martin Phipps
> On Jul 8, 12:26 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If you mean _provide_ then you're lying again. When a headline says
> > "Justice League movie to be motion capture" then they are saying the
> > Justice League movie was going to be motion capture. Then they
> > provide the source as the IESB. The actual quote from the IESB was
> > "the real interesting thing about this is that the contract is for an
> > all-cgi "photo-real" motion capture movie, much like the upcoming
> > Beowulf" so they were pretty sure of themselves even if they were
> > wrong (which we will never know because for all we know Warner Bros
> > may have said no to motion capture).
>
> IESB may have been wrong and all of the others you provided suggested
> that they were.
>
> > > > They could have Superman,
> > > > Aquaman, Green Arrow, Martian Manhunter, Hawkman, Supergirl and the
> > > > Black Canary appear on Smallville.
> > > Yes, but not Batman.
> > Oh God. Are you now saying this was because of the contract with
> > George Miller? Maybe it was because there was a series of Batman
> > movies being done by Nolan.
>
> I don't think it was the movies. I think someone had a live action TV
> contract... or maybe DC was holding back on the TV contract.
No. Stop speculating. Millar and Gough were told they couldn't use
Batman because Nolan's Batman begins was going to focus on batman's
origins and they didn't waNT Millar and Gough covering the same
ground.
> > > > All I see from you is speculation
> > > > that George Miller's contract prevented them from doing a Justice
> > > > League movie when in fact they've been saying for some time that they
> > > > decided not to go ahead with a Justice League movie because they
> > > > didn't want to appear to be "copying" what Marvel was doing with the
> > > > Avengers.
> > > Really? When did they start saying that?
> >http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelFreshman/news/?a=21133
> > "Nelson and Johns say they're not out to copy Marvel and they view the
> > competition as friendly and motivational."
>
> No where in that story does it say that they aren't planning to make
> JLA movie.
>
> Just that they aren't planning to copy Marvel - which could mean a
> number of things.
>
> >http://io9.com/5659404/no-plans-for-a-justice-league-movie-says-geoff...
> > "Avengers team-up film is generating mega-buzz, but DC has no plans to
> > follow suit with the Justice League, Geoff Johns told NYCC. Because
> > DC's characters are "bigger than Marvel's." He'd rather build them up
> > separately than "smashing them together.""
>
> No plans isn't "decided not to go ahead with a Justice League movie
> because they didn't want to appear to be "copying" what Marvel".
> Rather he says it's because he see the DC characters as bigger then
> the Marvel characters and therefore more suited to solo films.
>
> Twisting things to support your lie?
Excuse me? I post evidence to support my statements. You NEVER
provide any evidence to support your bullshit.
> > > No, it shows they can to a straight to DVD JLA animation. It doesn't
> > > say anything about theatrical releases.
> > It shows that they retained the rights to the characters even as a
> > group.
>
> For straight to DVD films. Not theatrical releases.
It shows that they retained the rights to the characters even as a
group.
What exactly do you find hard to understand about that?
> > Just saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. You haven't
> > cited a single reference and you keep asking me to provide mine. This
> > is getting tiresome.
>
> Good. Stop lying.
Okay, look, it's time for you, the lying piece of shit, to put up or
shut up. In fact, it is past time. I have been extremely patient
with you but it stops now. I'm not being a "coward" if I refuse to
respond to the same bullshit over and over again.
Martin
George Chen
> > The fact is that Warner Bros retained the rights to the characters
> > both individually and as a group. I see no evidence whatsoever that
> > they couldn't do whatever they damn well wanted with their
> > characters.
>
> Then you don't understand film making.
So what are you saying Duggy? Are you saying that studios can't fire
directors? How about when Richard Donner was fired from Superman 2
and replaced with Lester? Apparently studios can do what they like.
Or are you saying that directors retain rights indefinitely? Usually,
it's the other way around: studios expect a movie to be finished by a
certain date so it can be released theatrically. That's the whole
point of specifying a release date: nowadays release dates are
specified for movies that don't even have scripts.
Then there's the example of the Roger Corman Fantastic Four movie.
Roger Corman made the Fantastic Four movie while he still had the
rights but the movie was so bad that it wasn't even released on video.
Now consider paragraphs two and three above. Logically you'd expect
that George Miller would have been expected to release the movie
within a certain time frame. That time frame would be measured in
years, not decades. George Miller would have been expected to put out
a movie within in that time frame or else his contract would lapse.
And Donner's case proves that they could have just hired another
director anyway.
Warner Brothers is a studio. They don't license their characters out
the way Marvel did with Fox, Universal and Sony. They hire directors
to direct movies. In that case Warner Brothers retains rights to the
characters; that is, of course, unless George Miller's contract
specifically said that Warner Brothers couldn't make another live
action theatrical movie while he was working on his. Why would Warner
Brothers agree to such a term? It makes no sense.
It seems to me, Duggy, that you are relying on rumors about an
argument between Warner Brothers and Miller when, in reality, they
could have just fired him and hired somebody else if they really
wanted to go ahead with a Justice League movie way back then.