Back in 2007, Warner Bros. had tapped George Miller (The Road Warrior) to direct a live-action version of Justice League. The film was eventually cancelled by WB, but it's one of those famous aborted attempts like Tim Burton's Superman Lives that got very close to actually happening. Apparently, they were doing tons of tests in Australia, in which WETA had developed the costumes, props, etc. for the characters. There were scripts, storyboards, pre-viz fight sequences and practically the entire movie laid out. The film was even cast: Armie Hammer was Batman, D.J. Cotrona was Superman, Adam Brody was The Flash, Teresa Palmer was Wonder Woman, Common was Green Lantern, and Santiago Cabrera was Aquaman. No word on who was set to play Martian Manhunter. Well, not much was known on Miller's planned JLA film but Armie Hammer sat down with Ain't It Cool News to talk about The Social Network, his new movie which opens today, and Hammer opened up a little bit about what Miller had planned for the film. Now, I was never in favor of Miller's planned JLA movie for various reasons: You were introducing a new Batman when there was an already established take on the character; you were introducing new characters such as The Flash and Green Lantern that audiences were not immediately familiar with when you could introduce them separately to a modern audience; if the movie tanked, you ruined several characters' chances at reaching an audience verses allowing them to flourish individually. It seems that Warner Bros. had some of these qualms as well since after cancelling Miller's film they decided to go the route of separately introducing these characters to an audience, and furthermore, apparently have no desire to build toward an eventual Justice League movie, or so DC Entertainment says. However, with that said, Hammer's comments sound really intriguing. I think George Miller is a fantastically talented director and probably would have delivered a good movie regardless of my reservations. I'm still glad we didn't get it for the reasons I stated above but I have to say based on Hammer's comments it sounds like it could have been a really interesting film. Thoughts?
The script was really interesting and I'm convinced that after reading it (no I can't share it with anyone unfortunately) that this film was meant for a-list actors just from the way it was written...it was big and bold, and the cast that was cast seemed miscast after reading the script.
Is that the same Armie Hammer who played Morgan on Reaper? Love that guy, very funny. Would have made a kick-ass Batman (but probably an even better Joker.) Well of course, he's a dead ringer for Vincent Chase.
Miller was thinking sequels, so he probably cast young for a reason. I mean, after all, this is the guy that jumpstarted Mel Gibson's career.
Sounds interesting; Miller had clearly put a lot of thought into this, even the way that he was preparing the actors for it. I had sort of dismissed Hammer as a Himbo but he's getting rave reviews for The Social Network (in a dual performance as twins), so clearly I was wrong. He could well have delivered an interesting take on Batman (though I think he was way too young for the role). I agree with Jackson that the timing for this movie was all wrong - it was a dumb idea to have a rival take on Batman while Nolan's series was doing so well, it was risky to put all the DC heroes in one movie, without giving them a proper introduction and it could have nixed all chances of giving them solo franchises. But yes, it does sound like an intriguing could have been. I hope the storyboards etc turn up online soon. And who knows, when Nolan and Bale quit the Batman series, when the next incarnation of Superman is up and running and the Green Lantern franchise needs a boost - maybe the time will be right to revive this project.
I think WB just wanted to compete with Marvel and get a superhero team movie out there before they could release The Avengers. However, I think that competitive mindset wasn't exactly the most sage way to go about things, and I'm glad they eventually decided to go another way. Let Marvel test the waters first with The Avengers- who knows, it could very well fail to connect with moviegoers (a seemingly rare possibility, but who knows). I already don't like how they are unnaturally trying to connect every Marvel movie together, sometimes to the detriment of their individual properties (for example, I thought Iron Man 2 suffered because of too many shoe-horned in Avengers elements; it honestly felt more like an Avengers infomercial than a standalone Iron Man film). Keeping the DC heroes separate- at least for now- is probably the better proposition and way to go. Establishing them first and then bringing them together sometime down the line will probably work better, verses aggressively trying to squeeze them all in one movie or push toward connecting them so they get into one movie faster.
I would've been very uncomfortable seeing Batman depicted as "delusional" and a "paranoid schizophrenic" -- that's Rorschach, not Batman. Aside from that, though, I'm intrigued by the depth of preparation described here to get the actors into character. Maybe that could've been an advantage of using young unknowns -- they're more malleable, less likely to let their egos or established personas get in the way of molding the characters.
Yet those traits are exactly what led Bruce to creating Brother Eye and which led to the OMAC's (which would have been used in the film) along with alienating him from his friends and allies. I think it is an interesting facet of his character that isn't focused enough on actually.
Yep Max was in it as well, although they never casted him they just mentioned the Justice League cast.
So was it that Bats creates Brother Eye and then Max co-opts it? Obviously no mention of Alexander Luthor or Superboy Prime...
There is a review available online somewhere I believe. I think AICN did one around the time the project was in development. Give me a week or so and I'll post my own review of the script.
i would love a live action JLA movie! and make it a a all star cast! if you good to do it big go BIG!
There's nothing interesting about Batman if he's simply insane. A rational Batman who's ultracautious, always preparing for the worst, is one thing. But a delusional, schizophrenic Batman would be preparing himself against threats that don't exist, and would be blind to real threats. That's what delusions and schizophrenia mean: that someone is out of touch with reality, unable to discern the real world from the fantasies inside one's mind. A paranoid schizophrenic Batman would be useless as a crimefighter. He'd be attacking innocent civilians and ignoring real crimes. He'd be "inventing" defenses that didn't work because he was making them out of tinfoil and discarded coffee grounds. He'd be an inmate in Arkham, not a functioning crimefighter or even a functioning human being. Batman is not insane. Obsessive, yes, but one can be obsessive-compulsive and still rational and functional. Psychosis is a whole different level of behavioral disorder, the kind characterized by the Joker, Two-Face, etc. The reason Batman's always able to beat those guys is because they're insane and he isn't. He's able to think and perceive clearly, to formulate rational strategies, to understand how to operate within the real world in order to achieve his goals. That makes him an admirable figure in his own way, a man who's achieved the ultimate in human potential. An insane Batman would just be pathetic and pitiable. Defining Batman as a lunatic is completely missing the point of the character, the essence of the fantasy he embodies.
Never said he was insane...I simply stated that I found those traits an interesting concept to explore and one of Bruce dark facets. Again you can not deny that they are what led him to compile his files on the League and create Brother Eye in the first place. Paranoia is apart of the Batman's personality at least to some degree.
No, you're conflating two very different concepts. You're talking about Batman's obsessive caution, his preparation for the worst. We tend to call that "paranoia," but that's hyperbole, a figure of speech. Actual paranoid schizophrenia is something very different, a delusional psychosis in which the subject is out of touch with reality and afraid of things that do not exist. The Batman you're describing is not psychotic or delusional. Delusion means perceiving things that don't exist, believing things that aren't real. What you're talking about is a highly rational Batman, a man who's extremely aware of all the potential threats that really could exist, and is able to make effective, coherent plans to guard against all those possibilities. Those are the actions of a man who is very intensely aware of reality and able to engage with it fully. That would be impossible if he were delusional or schizophrenic. But the Batman in that movie, according to Hammer's interview, was described specifically by the words "delusional" and "paranoid schizophrenic." That wouldn't have been what you're describing. That would've been a dysfunctional caricature of what you're describing.
Good thing they never made the movie because this would probably be viewed as a controversial depiction of the character.