Hawkman Movie?

[Guy Gardener]

Thing about John Stewart as Green Lantern, is that I would want to Cast Jon Stewart as John Stewart, and I don't know if we should forget that he's black, or Jon Should do blackface and play down his Jewiness.

(I'm thinking of about four episodes of the Sarah Silverman show which already did or said most of what I just typed.)

 

[Myasishchev]

The value of existing characters is their familiarity.

It's true that no one knew what Star Wars and its characters were before 1977. Any time Warners can come up with the next Lucas or Cameron, they can stop worrying about whether or not anyone gives a fuck about Aquaman.

That's my point. Either don't make a movie with Aquaman, or get people on that level of talent. That approach has not been tried and found wanting, it's been found difficult and left, for the most part, untried.

I mean, there's no law that says genuine auteurs are only allowed to work on superhero movies if they have Batman in them.

"A love action" movie. Rao, I hate typing when I'm tired. Of course I meant LIVE action movie lol. Yeah the only time I could see WW in a movie is part of a future attempt at a "Justice League" movie.

I just thought you meant like The Terminator or something.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

ither don't make a movie with Aquaman, or get people on that level of talent...I mean, there's no law that says genuine auteurs are only allowed to work on superhero movies if they have Batman in them.

If you have Cameron or Lucas, you don't need Aquaman - in fact, you're constraining them to no good effect by putting them to work on a derivative franchise. If you're smart you fund them to do whatever they want to do.

But then, of course, Warners doesn't have people like that at their beck and call. Hence attempts to turn C-listers like Flash and Aquaman into movies.

 

[Myasishchev]

ither don't make a movie with Aquaman, or get people on that level of talent...I mean, there's no law that says genuine auteurs are only allowed to work on superhero movies if they have Batman in them.

If you have Cameron or Lucas, you don't need Aquaman - in fact, you're constraining them to no good effect by putting them to work on a derivative franchise. If you're smart you fund them to do whatever they want to do.

But then, of course, Warners doesn't have people like that at their beck and call. Hence attempts to turn C-listers like Flash and Aquaman into movies.

Cameron or Lucas specifically, maybe (although if we're taking that metaphor and making it concrete, we should probably leave Lucas out of it).

I see your point, that top-flight talent will have its own agenda which, because of its quality and likely profitability, has to be indulged, whereas journeymen can be interchangably used on studio-driven project. The latter part is certainly correct, but I don't know if the former point is actually the case.

To the best of my knowledge, for example, Nolan and Burton wanted to do Batman movies. Abrams wanted to do a Star Trek movie. Aronofsky apparently did (or still does, or whatever) want to do Wolverine. Whedon presumably wants to do the Avengers. (And you can maybe argue that not everybody I mentioned is top-flight, and that might be the case, one of whom I don't even especially like, but one would at least have to concede they're artists, rather than workmen.)

The point is, I'm not sure you can completely write off name talent's willingness and enthusiasm to do franchise work.