They are going ahead with a Justice League movie

[Ian Keldon]

Here's an interesting article on the "behind the scenes" structural problems that JL faces.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/...tm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_25040

I would add to it the fact that WB has been utterly unable to build a "universe" of highly successful films to serve as "lead ins" to JL as opposed to Marvel who has made hit after hit movie with solo characters first.

 

[sojourner]

I would add to it the fact that WB has been utterly unable to build a "universe" of highly successful films to serve as "lead ins" to JL as opposed to Marvel who has made hit after hit movie with solo characters first.

Hey, wow, there's a thought that hasn't been brought up before.

And damn, that linked article looked like it was written by a 5 year old.

 

[Ian Keldon]

^Whatever, Sojourner...the writer still clearly articulated several major structural problems (and at least one significant production problem)in the DC/WB system that any JL movie will have to overcome.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Good lord, doesn't that site have an editor or at least a proofreader?

Basically all this person said is the JLA is too powerful, so the threat they face would be so large and their powers are so great, it would cost too much money to film. I would disagree, none of their powers are "budget busters". He assumes that their power levels will be the same as seen in the comics, as well. More than likely they will handle it like the DCAU, where the powers were kept at a more "manageable" level. The threat doesn't have to be any greater than what was seen in Avengers, either. All you need is something to keep the JLA occupied in the same way the invading Chitauri did in The Avengers.

 

[Silvercrest]

I would add to it the fact that WB has been utterly unwilling to build a "universe" of highly successful films to serve as "lead ins" to JL as opposed to Marvel who has made hit after hit movie with solo characters first.

Fixed that for ya.

They don't want to make Wonder Woman. They made a Green Lantern movie that doesn't particularly lend itself to a shared universe. (Though to be fair, it doesn't rule it out, either-- but the point is they could have tried.) And they made three Batman movies whose nature utterly divorces the character from other superheroes.

The best we've gotten from ANY live-action DC property in the last thirty years was one line in the George Clooney movie.

They've chosen to dig their own hole.

 

[Christopher]

They made a Green Lantern movie that doesn't particularly lend itself to a shared universe.

Why would you say that? The whole reason they included Angela Bassett as Amanda Waller -- a character who has no particular connection to the GL mythos -- was, or so I understood it, with the hope of using her as the DC/WB equivalent of Jackson's Nick Fury, a recurring character to anchor a shared movie universe. But those plans for a shared universe fell apart due to GL's underperformance at the box office and with critics. (Although I still think that GL would be far more acclaimed if it had come out, say, 7-8 years earlier and the only competition had been things like Catwoman and Elektra. It wasn't an awful movie, it just suffered from coming out in a summer that featured three fantastic superhero movies from Marvel.)

And they made three Batman movies whose nature utterly divorces the character from other superheroes.

The first of which came out before the idea of a crossover superhero movie universe was seriously pursued by anyone, so that doesn't really prove anything.

 

[Ian Keldon]

I disagree with the assertion that Batman's nature precludes being on a team. Indeed, Batman's paranoid nature would DEMAND that he at least be a "part-timer", if only so he could keep an eye on the others and study them for weaknesses to exploit should the need arise.

 

[Silvercrest]

I forgot about Waller. Very good point. (And it was overkill to make a sweeping statement about everything live-action when I didn't even think about Smallville.) I retract some of that.

Ian, I'm not sure if you were addressing me, but I wasn't referring to Batman's nature. Only the nature of the Nolan movies.

 

[Set Harth]

The best we've gotten from ANY live-action DC property in the last thirty years was one line in the George Clooney movie.

What line?

 

[sojourner]

^Something about "Superman doesn't have to put up with this", if I remember right.

I disagree with the assertion that Batman's nature precludes being on a team. Indeed, Batman's paranoid nature would DEMAND that he at least be a "part-timer", if only so he could keep an eye on the others and study them for weaknesses to exploit should the need arise.

We're referring specifically to Nolan's Batman not fitting into a Justice League movie.

 

[Silvercrest]

Right. Nolan's Batman invokes a level of realism that doesn't work as soon as you involve actual super-powers. But I do believe a Batman can fit in if it's written correctly.

And the exact line was "This is why Superman works alone."

Maybe I shouldn't admit to knowing that.

 

[Christopher]

Right. Nolan's Batman invokes a level of realism that doesn't work as soon as you involve actual super-powers.

Wellllll... yeah, if it's the kind of "realism" where a microwave weapon can instantly vaporize all the water within several blocks without affecting the water inside human bodies, or where a steel cable can make a whole huge truck flip over instead of simply snapping, or where a broken spine can be cured with a punch in the back and a few days of suspension bondage, or where a guy who has to wear a gas mask at all times to avoid unbearable pain is somehow still able to eat, or where a blatantly fraudulent sale of Bruce Wayne's assets can't be halted in any way, or...

I'd also point out that Batman: The Animated Series had a relatively realistic approach in its original run -- there was some fanciful weird science like genetic transformation and sapient AIs and time acceleration, but no magic or aliens or the like (Zatanna was portrayed as simply a stage magician) -- but then once Batman coexisted with Superman in the later series, things got more fanciful and Batman dealt with the likes of Etrigan the Demon and Klarion the Witch-Boy -- and then became part of the Justice League, which dealt with aliens and magic and demons and the like on a regular basis. So a universe that starts out relatively grounded can get more fanciful.

 

[Sindatur]

Right. Nolan's Batman invokes a level of realism that doesn't work as soon as you involve actual super-powers. But I do believe a Batman can fit in if it's written correctly.

And the exact line was "This is why Superman works alone."

Maybe I shouldn't admit to knowing that.

Too late, cat's already in the alley howling it

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Nolan's Batman invokes a level of realism that doesn't work as soon as you involve actual super-powers.

I don't buy that.

Nolan stepped outside any pretense of realism no later than when Batman activated the cloaking mechanism of the Batmobile in BB. The precise effect of the blue flower in its specificity wasn't exactly devoid of the fantastic, either.

The cellphone sonar network was more of a conceit than something believable. In a realistic world, the Joker would have taken one between the eyes as soon as he made the pencil disappear, but he was protected by his aura of badass-ness. Such exaggerations penetrating into the fantastic are quintessential elements in a story of super-heroes and arch-villains.

Naturally, Two-Face required a suspension of disbelief. Not that I'm sorry for even one of the frames he was in.

Then we have the Batplane.

The illusion of realism in the Nolan trilogy was just a prop, skillfully utilized to be sure, but never once did I believe that I was watching anything intended to happen in anything like the real world.

I actually think that, in the hands of a master, Superman would benefit from being presented with a similar illusion of realism. Recall, the tagline of the 1978 film was, "You'll Believe a Man Can Fly!" While naturally the new film remains to be seen, certainly the flight scene in the MoS trailer, arms at his side, suggests a contemporary take of such a realistic approach.

 

[Silvercrest]

Right. Nolan's Batman invokes a level of realism that doesn't work as soon as you involve actual super-powers.

Wellllll... yeah, if it's the kind of "realism" where a microwave weapon can instantly vaporize all the water within several blocks without affecting the water inside human bodies, or where a steel cable can make a whole huge truck flip over instead of simply snapping, or where a broken spine can be cured with a punch in the back and a few days of suspension bondage, or where a guy who has to wear a gas mask at all times to avoid unbearable pain is somehow still able to eat, or where a blatantly fraudulent sale of Bruce Wayne's assets can't be halted in any way, or...

That's why I said "a level of realism" rather than just plain calling it "realistic", which it's not.

We just saw a Batman whose accumulated physical injuries were so severe that he couldn't continue in his job. That's a very human level of realism that wouldn't translate very well when you're dealing with people who are superhuman.

To put him and Superman on the same level, they'd have to at least explain why the latter isn't flabby and doesn't have a gut-- because relative to his own level of strength, he barely exercises. I'm sure you're familiar with the argument.

 

[Ian Keldon]

I stand corrected vis a vis what was being discussed.

 

[Christopher]

I actually think that, in the hands of a master, Superman would benefit from being presented with a similar illusion of realism. Recall, the tagline of the 1978 film was, "You'll Believe a Man Can Fly!" While naturally the new film remains to be seen, certainly the flight scene in the MoS trailer, arms at his side, suggests a contemporary take of such a realistic approach.

I recall reading a comment from someone high up in the production that MoS is actually aiming for a high level of verisimilitude. Whether it's "in the hands of a master" remains to be seen, though.

We just saw a Batman whose accumulated physical injuries were so severe that he couldn't continue in his job. That's a very human level of realism that wouldn't translate very well when you're dealing with people who are superhuman.

Except he then somehow miraculously recovered without explanation. There was that strength-enhancing gizmo he wore on his knee in an early scene, but that doesn't explain why he was able to get back into perfect fighting form in that Mideastern prison with nothing but willpower. So they paid lip service to realism early on and then threw it out the window.

 

[Set Harth]

Nolan stepped outside any pretense of realism no later than when Batman activated the cloaking mechanism of the Batmobile in BB.

Because turning off lights isn't realistic?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Nolan stepped outside any pretense of realism no later than when Batman activated the cloaking mechanism of the Batmobile in BB.

Because turning off lights isn't realistic?

IIRC, the vehicle did "a bit more" than just go dark itself. Weren't there spotlights on the thing that all somehow lost track of it?

 

[Silvercrest]

Except he then somehow miraculously recovered without explanation. There was that strength-enhancing gizmo he wore on his knee in an early scene, but that doesn't explain why he was able to get back into perfect fighting form in that Mideastern prison with nothing but willpower. So they paid lip service to realism early on and then threw it out the window.

I chalked that up as being temporary and most likely pushing himself beyond his limits. If he'd kept it up long-term, he would have come apart at the seams. YMMV.

Would you accept it if I said "more lip service to realism" in place of "higher level of realism"?

And still more lip service than I bet they pay to Superman or the Justice League.