They are going ahead with a Justice League movie

[CorporalCaptain]

It's a foregone conclusion that Star Trek (2009) was not written for those Star Trek fans who can't tolerate the TOS roles being recast or who can't tolerate adventures in a new continuity.

A certain subset of fans who call themselves purists are adamantly resistant to new interpretations of their pet franchise. Catering to such intractable fans, who want things to stay exactly the way they've always been, would only drag the franchise down. When trying to make a successful motion picture, pleasing them is not the goal, and they are de facto generally excluded.

[Christopher]

^I didn't say movies were written to be appealing to every possible audience simultaneously, because obviously that can never happen. I was saying that adaptations are written for both general audiences and the fans -- and the purists are a much tinier percentage of the fans than they believe they are. So it's certainly possible to please the majority of fans, even knowing that you'll alienate the closed-minded purists.

[AvBaur]

Now they want Nolan, Goyer, and Snyder to do it, possibly with Bale as Batman:

http://www.hitfix.com/motion-capture...ce-league-woes

[Shazam!]

*sigh*

Just make a Superman movie, then a Batman movie, then a Wonder Woman movie and then tie them all together in the Justice League movie bringing back Green Lantern and introducing The Flash.

It's not even difficult.

[FPAlpha]

Shazam! wrote:

---

*sigh*

Just make a Superman movie, then a Batman movie, then a Wonder Woman movie and then tie them all together in the Justice League movie bringing back Green Lantern and introducing The Flash.

It's not even difficult.

Why should they copy Marvel? Nearly everybody knows Superman and Batman foregoing the need for introductory movies.

Wonder Woman i'll give you that, Green Lantern had his already (as mediocre as it was) so i'd go a different way if only to separate myself from Marvel.

About the only thing i'd imagine that would work is building up the villain through several, hero centric, movies culminating in the big JL movie.

Let's wait and see what Nolan does with it.

[Shazam!]

FPAlpha wrote:

---

Why should they copy Marvel?

Presumably because they made a gabillion pounds. A fraction of that would be considered a success.

[Gaith]

Shazam! wrote:

---

*sigh*

Just make a Superman movie, then a Batman movie, then a Wonder Woman movie and then tie them all together in the Justice League movie bringing back Green Lantern and introducing The Flash.

It's not even difficult.

So certain you might not be, if access to WB's focus group data you had, and own career was on the line, yours was.

[Hartzilla2007]

FPAlpha wrote:

---

Why should they copy Marvel?

It gives a chance to showcase the new versions of characters as well as ones who are just now getting a movie in an environment where they get plenty of screen time and characterization so they know who is popular enough to focus on in the team and who to give the shaft and to also allow the audience to give a crap about these guys before putting them in a team movie that has to divide up the screen time between the characters.

Seriously do you really think DC should risk screwing this up becuase the characters come off as weak in the big film, instead of using the solo films to figure out who works the best and who needs a recast?

[FPAlpha]

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

It gives a chance to showcase the new versions of characters as well as ones who are just now getting a movie in an environment where they get plenty of screen time and characterization so they know who is popular enough to focus on in the team and who to give the shaft and to also allow the audience to give a crap about these guys before putting them in a team movie that has to divide up the screen time between the characters.

Seriously do you really think DC should risk screwing this up becuase the characters come off as weak in the big film, instead of using the solo films to figure out who works the best and who needs a recast?

By this line of reasoning they shouldn't have included Iron Man if Downey Jr. bombed bad with the box office and critics/fans?

I certainly didn't like the Thor movie at all for the most part but they still had him in the movie because he was part of the initial comic lineup.

The whole Marvel thing was a huge gamble.. even if the solo movies were successes the team movie could have ruined it all by being all flash and no substance. Marvel didn't have contingency plans because these movies need years to be done and were tightly integrated into the entire universe so even if an actor turned out bad he still would have been in the movie.

The exception of course if Norton's Hulk/Bruce Banner.. while being very good in his own movie they still recast him and it worked but i'd dare say it was not only because they found a good actor to replace him but the writing of Whedon that made the Hulk (an otherwise boring character to me) the breakout star of the movie.

IF WB sets a similar timetable like Marvel they have committed themselves like Marvel and i don't believe lightning can strike twice so i'm very hesitant to just copy Marvel's approach.

They tried the big budget, effects heavy summer blockbuster with Green Lantern and it didn't work because the elements of the movie didn't click like they did with Iron Man so DC might need to try a different approach and bringing in Nolan might be the first correct step.

[Christopher]

FPAlpha wrote:

---

By this line of reasoning they shouldn't have included Iron Man if Downey Jr. bombed bad with the box office and critics/fans?

I certainly didn't like the Thor movie at all for the most part but they still had him in the movie because he was part of the initial comic lineup.

Non sequitur. Thor was the tenth highest-grossing film of 2011. Naturally there are going to be individuals who dislike any given film, but Thor didn't come anywhere remotely near bombing. Rotten Tomatoes gives it an 80% audience approval and 77% critic approval rating.

The whole Marvel thing was a huge gamble.. even if the solo movies were successes the team movie could have ruined it all by being all flash and no substance.

Which is why they were smart to give it to Whedon. It guaranteed that wouldn't be the case.

Marvel didn't have contingency plans because these movies need years to be done and were tightly integrated into the entire universe so even if an actor turned out bad he still would have been in the movie.

The exception of course if Norton's Hulk/Bruce Banner..

I don't think that's the exception, I think it proves your previous statement isn't true. Particularly when you consider that they also recast James Rhodes when Terence Howard got disappointing reviews.

[Hartzilla2007]

FPAlpha wrote:

---

By this line of reasoning they shouldn't have included Iron Man if Downey Jr. bombed bad with the box office and critics/fans?

I'm pretty sure if Iron Man bombed they might have gone back an rethought the whole thing. So its likely that there wouldn't have been an Avengers film to put him in.

[JD]

I wouldn't mind Goyer and Nolan being involved, but I'd rather not see them bring back Bale, if he's playing the same character from the Dark Knight trilogy. I thought the ending of TDKR was a perfect ending for that series and I'd hate to see it canceled out just for Justice League. I would be interested in seeing Nolan direct JL, just to see how would handle a more comic booky movie, with aliens and real superpowers.

[Professor Zoom]

Christopher wrote:

---

Particularly when you consider that they also recast James Rhodes when Terence Howard got disappointing reviews.

From what I understood, Howard was difficult to work with, and cost quite a bit.

Edited to add: I'm wrong about the difficult to work with, I misread Faverau not happy with his performance bit...

[Christopher]

JD wrote:

---

I wouldn't mind Goyer and Nolan being involved, but I'd rather not see them bring back Bale, if he's playing the same character from the Dark Knight trilogy.

Honestly, I never really thought Bale was all that good a Batman. I really want to leave the Bat-growl in the past. (Seriously, why did he keep using the growl in TDKR even when he was alone or with people who knew he was Bruce? And even when he was specifically choosing to reveal his identity to a certain character?)

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

From what I understood, Howard was difficult to work with, and cost quite a bit.

Either way, the point is, Marvel is willing to replace actors.

[Professor Zoom]

Christopher wrote:

---

Honestly, I never really thought Bale was all that good a Batman. I really want to leave the Bat-growl in the past. (Seriously, why did he keep using the growl in TDKR even when he was alone or with people who knew he was Bruce? And even when he was specifically choosing to reveal his identity to a certain character?)

Either way, the point is, Marvel is willing to replace actors.

You might have been posting while I edited. But, yeah. Some day, Marvel will replace Downey if Iron Man is still successful enough to continue.