They are going ahead with a Justice League movie

[Captain Craig]

Christopher wrote:

---

Opinion has nothing to do with it. It's a documented fact. You can find plenty of evidence to support it. It's simply the nature of feature filmmaking in Hollywood, a consequence of the way it's structured, that the people who get screen credit for writing a movie may have very little to do with the final content of the film. That's why there are so very many cases of the same screenwriter being credited for both awful films and wonderful films (like David Goyer on the Blade films vs. the Nolan Batman films, or John Logan writing both the Oscar-winning Gladiator and the poorly-received Star Trek: Nemesis -- although I actually liked Nemesis).

I don't disagree with you that things get altered from screen to page that can be outside the screenwriters control. That interpretation of page then translated to direction of an actor can at times not be fluid. I feel this was part of what happened with the one of few lines that Whedon wrote in the first X-Men film "lightning hits a toad..."
If you're citing Blade films as awful I'd just disagree and I also think Nemesis is overly bashed(some it deserves but overall).

I just disagree that it's not unwarranted or undeserving to look at a screenwriter as you would any other person in the process-director, producer, composer etc.. and say "Do I like your prior work?", "What have you done lately, was I impressed?"

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

I don't disagree with you that things get altered from screen to page that can be outside the screenwriters control. That interpretation of page then translated to direction of an actor can at times not be fluid.

It goes way beyond that, though. Most directors supervise the writing of scripts (along with producers and studio execs) and see that they're tailored to their liking.

[Christopher]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

I just disagree that it's not unwarranted or undeserving to look at a screenwriter as you would any other person in the process-director, producer, composer etc.. and say "Do I like your prior work?", "What have you done lately, was I impressed?"

Sure, fine, but just don't overestimate how much influence the screenwriter has over the process, and don't trust that the writing credits you see on the screen have anything to do with who's actually responsible for the finished film. What's credited as a given writer's work may contain virtually none of their actual work, so you have to be skeptical of what you read in the credits.

[davejames]

The Lensman wrote:

---

Why? Joss Whedon was at the helm of a train that was already heading down hill, full speed, when he sat in the engineers chair. The MCU had been working towards Avengers for years, there was already massive anticipation for the film and and no one was doubting that it was going to be a huge hit. The only surprise was how huge it actually was.

Please, there might have been a lot of anticipation for Avengers, but it still could have VERY easily ended up either a completely trainwreck, or just another average, by the numbers superhero flick, given all the different characters involved.

Whedon might have made it look deceptively easy, but he still had to juggle a LOT of different story elements to make the thing work. He not only did that brilliantly, but in the end made an even better movie than most of the ones that led up to it, which is no small feat.

[Donald Draper]

There are a couple of reasons that The Avengers worked that JLA does not have. Regardless of how WB plans it.

The Marvel universe has been integrated in the comics from the beginning. With crossover appearances right away. Because Stan Lee wrote all the books. DC was not like that for years. The JSA and the JLA rarely interacted in their own books. Just Superman and Batman for a long time.

As a result with DC it seems more forced. because a lot of DC's characters where based on the Superman archetype in some way. Only Batman is completely different from him. So it's not surprising that those are their two most popular characters.

While The Avengers are completely different from each other. Which offer great contrasts and conflicts. Due to mostly being from the same team of Lee and Kirby. They wanted each book to be different from the other to be more interesting for them to create.

[Dream]

davejames wrote:

---

Whedon might have made it look deceptively easy, but he still had to juggle a LOT of different story elements to make the thing work. He not only did that brilliantly, but in the end made an even better movie than most of the ones that led up to it, which is no small feat.

Whedon was able to juggle all the characters and make the movie actually about the TEAM.

Everyone got some development and a chance to shine. It wasn't all about Iron Man like I feared it would become.

Those X-Men movies focused almost entirely on Wolverine while the rest of this teammates were shoved to the background. I still won't forgive them for what they did to Cyclops.

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

The DC Universe has been integrated for so long that it doesn't seem forced at all in my opinion. There are logic problems in the notion of a shared universe full of superheroes, but that's true of the DC and Marvel Universes alike.

[Greg Cox]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

I just disagree that it's not unwarranted or undeserving to look at a screenwriter as you would any other person in the process-director, producer, composer etc.. and say "Do I like your prior work?", "What have you done lately, was I impressed?"

True, but it's also worth remembering that just looking at the talents' resume is not always the most reliable indicator.

Case in point: GREEN LANTERN. On paper, Martin Campbell seemed like a logical choice for director. He'd already done stellar work with James Bond and Zorro, so why not turn him loose on Green Lantern, too? And yet . . .

On other hand, prior to IRON MAN, Jon Favreau was probably best known for ELF. Not exactly an action-packed comic book blockbuster. But that turned out great.

And I'm old enough to remember the howls of fannish despair when (gasp!) the director of BEETLEJUICE and PEE-WEE'S BIG ADVENTURE was hired to do BATMAN. Clearly, that was going to bomb big time . . . .

[Disruptor]

They should make it like a sequel to the old Super Friends show (like the live action Scooby Doo movie was). I think that's how most of public remembers the "Justice League".

That's the worst idea I could come up with...except just releasing that unaired Justice League tv pilot from the 90's for the big screen. Polish up the effects a tad.

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

The Lensman wrote:

---

Well they are a business and the goal is to make money. If that can be done with something with artistic integrity? Great. If it can be done with garbage from Adam Sandler? Great.

They don't care how they make money.....they're there to make money. All other considerations are secondary.

I disagree. Watchmen wasn't the standard comic book movie and that's why it failed. People were expecting the type of formulaic movie we've had in EVERY single super hero movie made since 2000. What they got was a murder mystery in a world of shades of gray that lacked "super villains". (Come to think of it, when was the last time you heard anyone mention Kick Ass?)

They wanted "Iron Man Begins Forever Part 6". They want standard "Good Guy vs Bad Guy" stuff and looking at Avengers success, they also don't want to think much either with their comic book movies. The movie was enjoyable, but it was a standard popcorn flick with all the depth of an inflatable baby pool.

Soooo.....they need to make movies about Hal Jordan and Peter Parker and then build up to the movie where they actually become super heroes?

GL was hyped so much that people were getting sick of it and bombed because it was badly executed garbage. No one's getting worked up about Spider-Man because the last series was a mega hit, it wasn't that long ago and there's the feeling of "been there, done that".

You may have to clarify this one a bit.

You don't have to be confrontational. You don't have to be argumentative. I'm seeing a general sense of comic-book overload, a lot of people are kind of sick of them. That's all Hollywood is making. watchmen wasn't the success that the studio wanted. Superman returns wasn't either. People didn't buy into how cool Green Lantern would be.. I don't see a lot of excitement for Spider-Man, partly for the reasons you mentioned. But in general, i think the movie going public is ready to move on. You could use the Avengers tremendous success to question my point, but that film was a culmination of years of build up. People wanted to see it, they wanted to see how it played. Same with TDKR, the finale of trilogy built over seven years. People want to see how both of these films will play. It's almost like they are looking for a satisfying way to purge the genre from their system. My bet is that the individual movies leading up to the Avengers 2 won't match the success of the Avengers, and, unless the stories are absolutely phenomenal, the heroes' names alone won't guarantee success (one need only look at Iron Man 2 to see that I'm right0. And what happens when Avengers 2 comes around. They all team up to fight more aliens. It might have been somewhat special to see comic book heroes team up once to fight aliens, but twice-- I'm not sure.

[the G-man]

The Lensman wrote:

---

Well they are a business and the goal is to make money. If that can be done with something with artistic integrity? Great. If it can be done with garbage from Adam Sandler? Great.

They don't care how they make money.....they're there to make money. All other considerations are secondary.

That is 100% true. And there's nothing wrong with it legally, ethically or morally.

I think the issue, however, is that Marvel put some thought into how to set up an Avengers movie and benefited from decisions made along the way.

WB seems to have simply looked at the grosses for Avengers and decided to just imitate the film concept without considering the need to lay the groundwork that actually made the concept work.

Sure, it might turn out okay. However, given that we have only an untested Superman reboot, a failed Green Lantern film and a successful film Batman that won't be part of the team (in that you don't have Bale/Nolan) to lead up to it, one has to wonder just how they think they'll do this film successfully at this time.

Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

---

i think the movie going public is ready to move on. You could use the Avengers tremendous success to question my point, but that film was a culmination of years of build up. People wanted to see it, they wanted to see how it played. Same with TDKR, the finale of trilogy built over seven years. People want to see how both of these films will play. It's almost like they are looking for a satisfying way to purge the genre from their system.

I respectfully disagree. I don't think people are ready to move on. They just want to see films that are good.

People went to Avengers initially because they liked the bulk of the films that led up to it. They saw a series of good films and saw this as the latest in that series. Word of mouth built up because the film was actually very good.

No, the sequels probably won't do as well, simply because I don't think they'll have the same word of mouth. But they'll still do well.

DC's problem is that they're trying to build on films that either didn't work, haven't come out yet or aren't likely part of the same continuity.

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

---

I'm seeing a general sense of comic-book overload, a lot of people are kind of sick of them.

People have been saying that for years and predicting that the bubble will pop and the genre will come to a crashing halt, and yet it keeps trucking on. Like any genre, there'll be hits and misses and the number of films released in any given year will go up and down, but I think the genre is here to stay.

the G-man wrote:

---

WB seems to have simply looked at the grosses for Avengers and decided to just imitate the film concept without considering the need to lay the groundwork that actually made the concept work.

A few points:

- This isn't a script that's been put into development after the release of The Avengers. It's been in development since The Avengers was in production. So, yes, of course Warners will be further spurred by the success of The Avengers, but this isn't a direct immediate response to it.

- We don't know yet what their thinking is regarding the timetable of these films. It can easily be a matter of several years from initital script development to release (if the project goes ahead). Since they have Flash and Wonder Woman films in development, too, one shouldn't assume that a Justice League film will come before both or either of them.

- Even if they do go straight to a Justice League film, there's more than one path to success. The approach Marvel has taken isn't the only way.

[Dream]

Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

---

I'm seeing a general sense of comic-book overload, a lot of people are kind of sick of them. That's all Hollywood is making.

What the heck are you talking about? Comic Movies have been doing well since the first X-Men movie in 2000. That was 13 years ago and the genre is still going strong. They aren't going anywhere right now, especially after the mega hit The Avengers.

[Shazam!]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

Don't get me wrong I want a JL movie but a good one.

Woah, really?

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Out Of My Vulcan Mind wrote:

---

People have been saying that for years and predicting that the bubble will pop and the genre will come to a crashing halt, and yet it keeps trucking on. Like any genre, there'll be hits and misses and the number of films released in any given year will go up and down, but I think the genre is here to stay.

My point is that this year, the genre will have blown its wad, both of the successful comic book films represent the end of built up anticipation on a scale unlike anything else. I just don't sense that the comic book films that follow these will have the same built-up anticipation. People are tired of the genre, but they still wanted to see how Avengers and Dark knight turn out.