NEW 'Justice League of America' Script In The Works

thecolorsblend wrote:Not sure I agree with that. Batman was under the leadership of Tim Burton at the time and the various Superman rights had been divvied up among Gorum-Globus Group and the Salkinds right around then. And then there was the Flash TV show to think about. A Justice League of America film without Superman, Batman or the Flash... well, you can call it anything you like but that ain't a Justice League film in MY book.

From there, Schumacher took over on the Batman films and ABC ran with Lois & Clark. Then SV started up.

I guess what I'm driving at here is that, in WB's defense, they've rarely (if ever) had a really good opportunity for to build up to a Justice League of America film. Of course, Batman Begins was a chance to start changing all that but, prior to then, I'd argue that the film division's hands were tied a good bit of the time.

There is no excusing anything after 2005 though...

Ok, how about 15-17 years ago?

The point is, they COULD HAVE. The things you mention were EASILY rectified long before Marvel Studios ever came into existence. WB decided not to, then watched like a bunch of gape-mouthed idiots while Marvel steam-rolled their way to big box office receipts AND a shared-universe.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

thecolorsblend wrote:Not sure I agree with that. Batman was under the leadership of Tim Burton at the time and the various Superman rights had been divvied up among Gorum-Globus Group and the Salkinds right around then. And then there was the Flash TV show to think about. A Justice League of America film without Superman, Batman or the Flash... well, you can call it anything you like but that ain't a Justice League film in MY book.

From there, Schumacher took over on the Batman films and ABC ran with Lois & Clark. Then SV started up.

I guess what I'm driving at here is that, in WB's defense, they've rarely (if ever) had a really good opportunity for to build up to a Justice League of America film. Of course, Batman Begins was a chance to start changing all that but, prior to then, I'd argue that the film division's hands were tied a good bit of the time.

There is no excusing anything after 2005 though...

Ok, how about 15-17 years ago?

The point is, they COULD HAVE. The things you mention were EASILY rectified long before Marvel Studios ever came into existence. WB decided not to, then watched like a bunch of gape-mouthed idiots while Marvel steam-rolled their way to big box office receipts AND a shared-universe.

There's a limit to how far I want to defend WB but a Superman/Batman film was first suggested back in, what, 2000 or so? As I recall, WB had a choice between a live action Batman Beyond type of thing, a Batman "Year One" sort of reboot or a Superman/Batman team up. It was ultimately between those last two and obviously the "year one" project won out, allegedly on the grounds that WB wanted to develop individual franchises before shooting their load on a team up movie.

Even as recently as the maybe six or twelve months leading up to Singerman's release, a Batman/Superman team up movie was still being actively kicked around. You'd hear occasional gossip about it here and there. "Bale's contract allows for a third movie to be a team up film". But then Singerman completely tanked it both artistically and financially while TDK... well, those numbers speak for themselves.

That doesn't explain why we didn't STILL haven't gotten Flash or Wonder Woman films, why a Green Lantern movie took so damn long to develop as it did or numerous other things. In fact, a lot of this owes back to WB's apparent allergy about developing non-Superman/Batman superhero films (GL not withstanding).

The other end of this is that WB did make a good faith effort at putting together a JLA film. Frankly, I blame the Apologists and the Nolan Nazis* as much as any other factor for JLA never happening. Had the core fans shut the fuck up and gotten on board, I truly believe WB would've made a stronger effort to make JLA happen. But between the casting issues, start date time crunch, tax incentive problems and other bullshit, part of me kind of can't blame WB for pulling the plug on the thing as they couldn't even get support from the apparent fanbase. Sure, a lot of fans supported the idea of a JLA movie... but a metric fuckton of them didn't, and most of them fall into one of the above two groups. Apparently, even Chris Nolan himself played some part in killing JLA (although that's unknown and likely unknowable).

WB have fucked a lot of things up but my only point here is that they've just as often been the victim of straight up bad luck.

* When Superman/Batman first leaked, a lot of big name and influential fan sites of the time (those jackoffs from Superman Cinema, Bill Ramey/Jett from Batman On Film and probably the Eunuch too) were at best lukewarm. One popular sentiment (which WB obviously came to agree with) was that it'd be a smarter play to develop the characters and franchises independently. "Do a movie or two first, THEN do the team up". However, and this is what pisses me off, esp in retrospect, a lot of those same fucking whore websites (Jett arguably leading the charge) pissed and moaned about JLA being done before Nolan and Singer could complete three films. Not just one or two. All fucking three. You want to know why I regard the Nolan Nazis with the same level of disdain as Apologists? Look no further.

And fuck it, since I'm on my soapbox, you think the Eunuch ran a police state website? You should've been around Jett's Batman On Film forum circa late 2007/early 2008. Here's an example. That whore openly solicited opinions on a question. "Would you sacrifice Nolan's Batman franchise for a JLA film?" I gleefully answered in the affirmative and got banned for my trouble. Other people got banned for other reasons, all of which can most easily be distilled as "not toeing the party line". Jett and his little Eichmanns tolerated no dissent in their Fourth Reich web forum. I was just a statistic in pretty short order. The way those asshats ran the forum, even the Eunuch would look at that and think "whoa, dude, THAT is suppression!"

Apologist Puncher wrote:

The point is, they COULD HAVE. The things you mention were EASILY rectified long before Marvel Studios ever came into existence. WB decided not to, then watched like a bunch of gape-mouthed idiots while Marvel steam-rolled their way to big box office receipts AND a shared-universe.

Interesting thing about Marvel here. I remember vividly back in the late 80's how Marvel was wanting to revive their TV FRANCHISES, specifically THE INCREDIBLE HULK. They didn't bring the series itself back but rather a series of TV films, 3 to be exact. The idea was to use the Hulk films to introduce even more Marvel characters. The 1st TV film introduced THOR but it was hardly the excellent version we got this past summer at the theater. Nevertheless it was still entertaining for what it was. Thor was depicted as being a beer-guzzling womanizer. He called the Hulk 'TROLL'. The film itself had a simple enough TV plot like what we were accustomed to with this series but as for Thor, they did try to incorporate a more 'supernatural' element than the usual science like we got with the show. They also got a guy to play Thor who actually had muscles & some size to him!

The 2nd TV film introduced DAREDEVIL but again, it was hardly the character we were used to. He had a black suit instead of a red one. Nevertheless I think they did try to get the basic concept of Daredevil anyway. Now the 3rd & final film I don't recall introducing any Marvel characters! They also 'killed off' Banner & Hulk but as I understood it later, there were plans to do a 4th film & 'revive' the character. I think both Bixby & Ferrigno were willing to do it but then Bixby died for real! So the 4th film was scrapped. Somewhere along this time period Gale Anne Hurd got it in her mind to do a Hulk film for the theater but it didn't come anytime soon. It took years. And what did we finally get? ANG LEE MAN!

But back to the TV concept. The plan was to introduce a steady stream of Marvel characters for the small screen with the intent to 'spin-off' these characters into their own TV series by using the Hulk films as the catalyst, the method of delivery so to speak. At least this was the intent of the concept as I understood it at the time.

Now we know that that didn't exactly work out as planned but did Marvel give up? NOOO-OOOO!!!!! I don't claim to have an exact timeline of all events but I do know that the BLADE film was considered somewhat of a victory for them, correct? Then came the 1st X-MEN film which, even though Singer directed it, was considered another victory! And then SPIDERMAN! And even though this was before Marvel Studios, it still helped Marvel's bottom line. You could say the ball was rolling by then.

Sooooo.....Marvel tried with TV with some success, some failure, but they didn't let that dissuade them. They later had mixed results at the theater but they didn't give up then either! So they keep plugging away & they even made some major gambles, the 1st being IRON MAN, followed by THOR & CAPTAIN AMERICA. The point here is that they were even willing to gamble on 'lesser known' characters to carry a major motion picture, but it worked! And Marvel continues to this day.

But what about WB/DC? Well, back in the day we had a few SUPERMAN films. A couple were hits & a couple were flops. Then we had some successful BATMAN films until that too bit the dust. So WB/DC also has some TV success, namely with the Superman franchise. However, they let their biggest character, Superman, languish in 'development hell' at the theater for 19 years & we finally got the abortion known as SINGERMAN! And with the exception of the Nolan Batman films, it's like they don't have a clue what to do with their characters! I just hope that changes now with Superman.

So this is a long way of saying that Marvel got in there & paid their dues no matter what & see how they're now rewarded? WB/DC, OTOH, were basically the 'king of the mountain' & should've known better. Even to this day you have to wonder, did they 'get the memo'?

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118055082

Hot scribe pushing 'Justice League' at Warner Bros.
Superhero pic back on with 'Gangster Squad' writer Will Beall
By JEFF SNEIDER

While Disney and Marvel were busy shooting "The Avengers" last year, Warner Brothers quietly began getting its own all-star superhero pic back on track, tapping "Gangster Squad" scribe Will Beall to write "Justice League," based on the WB-controlled stable of DC Comics superheroes.
Warner Bros. had no comment on the top-secret hire, which, due to its timing, was more in anticipation of -- rather than a reaction to -- the box office success of "The Avengers."

Beall has yet to turn in his "Justice League" script, though he has become a favorite scribe of Warners. He's writing the studio's "Lethal Weapon" reboot and its remake of "Logan's Run," which is expected to reteam "Gangster Squad" thesp Ryan Gosling with his "Drive" director Nicolas Winding Refn. Warners will release "Gangster Squad" on Sept. 7.

Warners originally tried to mount a "Justice League" movie several years ago, with George Miller directing from a script by Kieran and Michele Mulroney. That iteration was set to star Adam Brody as the Flash, Megan Gale as Wonder Woman and then-newcomer Armie Hammer as Batman. Back in January 2008, the studio cited a lack of tax breaks as the main reason it pulled the plug on the project, which also needed a rewrite that wasn't possible because of the writers' strike.

DC Comics is a vital component of Warner Bros.' intellectual property, as "Green Lantern" scribes Marc Guggenheim and Michael Green were tapped to write "The Flash" for director Greg Berlanti, while another "Green Lantern" scribe, Michael Goldenberg, was hired to write "Wonder Woman." Additionally, Brad Peyton is working on a new draft of "Lobo," while John Kamps and David Koepp are developing "Spy vs. Spy" as a potential directing vehicle for Ron Howard. WB also developed the "Aquaman" property several years ago.

Beall is repped by CAA and Management 360.

Once again, guess who's late to the party??

Shocking, isn't this?

Yup ap late as usual. Never heard of this writer before. But with the off/on/off nature dc films has been. Let's see how it goes. And who knows what kind of film it could be. I think it would be a bad move right now. With the direction of batman future unknown. Supermaan we don't know if it will be good yet. And sure it could be a good way to launch ww/flash/others to a later solo film. But the way marvel worked on solo pics first to lead to film is the much better approach. And its better if they where working on that first. Then trying to jump the gun and could turn into a crap film.

Would be interesting to see how they approach this. My suggestion: Don't bother trying to build a universe just to set up a JLA movie. IMO, they should set the JLA films as standalone with its own unique cast. I rather not wait couple of years just for WB to set up all the solo films as one big build up. The lost that opportunity awhile ago. A movie with Routh or Cavill, Bale, and Renolds is never gonna see the light of day anyway. With the multiple animated features DC already does with all their own unique styles, I don't think it would hurt to set up a JLA movie with a different cast that aren't from the solo films. The big draw of a JLA film will not be seeing the actors unite together, it will be seeing Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, ect team up.

That could work. But look at how marvel has done it. They laid the ground work across all there movies. With having them connect. And time/magic/science all work in a believeable way. Plus we got to build up characters story and actions. So we have fans invested into there characters and we know more about each character via there solo debut. Going blindly into a jl film. We won't get that type of feeling of knowing and understanding the characters. Beside maybe superman if mos is tied to this.. and with that you have to waste precious time of the film developing who and what every one is. And why they become the jl and same with villains. That is why I still think the marvel approach is the better way to go. So we develop characters, events, arcs over a series of films. And have a greater feel of the world we see and the characters in it.

Now u can get away having a different cast for batman with nolan time over. And gl could be worked around if they decide to use guy/john/ kyle over hal. But having different cast from solo films would be a bad move. You get fans invested in an actor and enjoy his work. But then they don't appear in jl film or virsa vera solo films. That is counter productive of thing. Why do conflicting live action takes. That will not help business out. It works in animation since they are telling different, unique stories. So different look and cast work there. In films via live action you want to have consistacey.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Once again, guess who's late to the party??

Shocking, isn't this?

No shit. I've been expecting some type of announcement for a while now. If anything, we should be surprised it's taken this long to break.

Still, there's a possibility that WB is going back to the drawing board here and abandoning the idea of unique/individual universes for their characters in favor of a shared universe. That's the only way to go at this point. Do a shared universe or get out.

Speaking of which...

Stockslivevan wrote:I don't think it would hurt to set up a JLA movie with a different cast that aren't from the solo films. The big draw of a JLA film will not be seeing the actors unite together, it will be seeing Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, ect team up.

Couldn't possibly disagree more. Does WB need to build toward a JLA film from solo films? Arguable either way. But the films need the continuity of a consistent tone and the same actors present in each. The smarter play might be to develop a JLA film with six characters. Use Cavill as Superman and then spin the two or three most popular heroes from JLA off into solo films. One thing audiences are responding to with Avengers is the concept of a shared universe. They enjoyed the individual films and seeing them all together in Avengers is part of the fun of it all.

You could even use the JLA series as an ongoing means of introducing new solo franchises. Do what Marvel is doing but do it in reverse. Any attempt to copy their formula will be seen as a ripoff. But there are only so many ways to do a shared universe on film so do Marvel's method backwards. It at least has the appearance of being original.

The alternative there is building even more gradually toward a JLA movie. Do MOS, then do a World's Finest film with Cavill and whoever replaces Bale, then do a Trinity film with Cavill, Bale's replacement and some new chick as Wonder Woman. Then do a JLA movie.

No matter what, Cavill has to be Superman and whoever ends up as Wonder Woman and Batman in the team up films need to get their solo films at some point. There's just no way around it.

Stockslivevan wrote:Would be interesting to see how they approach this. My suggestion: Don't bother trying to build a universe just to set up a JLA movie. IMO, they should set the JLA films as standalone with its own unique cast. I rather not wait couple of years just for WB to set up all the solo films as one big build up. The lost that opportunity awhile ago.

I disagree completely. This would be the BIGGEST fuck-up the Bros. Warner could do.

You can't have a JLA film, and by some miracle it be GOOD, get people invested in the characters and the actors playing them, then have someone ELSE play them in the solo films. People will feel "cheated", and just not even bother.

colors has it right.

A movie with Routh

Did this even need to be said?

Seriously?

or Cavill, Bale, and Renolds is never gonna see the light of day anyway. With the multiple animated features DC already does with all their own unique styles, I don't think it would hurt to set up a JLA movie with a different cast that aren't from the solo films. The big draw of a JLA film will not be seeing the actors unite together, it will be seeing Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, ect team up.

I expect to see Cavill in the JLA film. I also expect to hear of some additional shooting on 'MOS', so they can throw in references to other DC characters.

I don't see the trouble of having different actors in different films series. The characters should be larger than the actors themselves, they're the real draw. Because MARVEL STUDIOS does it one way doesn't make it a rule IMO.

Stockslivevan wrote:I don't see the trouble of having different actors in different films series. The characters should be larger than the actors themselves, they're the real draw.

In a perfect world, you'd be right.

But Singerman Peeps, 'Green Lantern', 'Jonah Hex', 'Steel' and 'Batman & Robin' disagree with you.

And it is just bad business sense to piss off your viewers. If 'Man Of Steel' comes out, and people LOVE Cavill as Superman, why would they go and see a 'JLA' film starring John Q. Actor as Supes instead?

Answer: They WON'T.

Because MARVEL STUDIOS does it one way doesn't make it a rule IMO.

To the Bros. Warner, $1,363,714,486 says it DOES.

All I'm saying is that I think if done right it could work.

Stockslivevan wrote:All I'm saying is that I think if done right it could work.

Can you remind me of what exactly WB has done "right" with their comic book properties recently?

Their track-record speaks for itself.

I've always felt the best route to take with and I will keep saying it, is treat this like LOTR in every aspect. Use it as a vehicle to introduce those characters you're thinking about making a solo film with but are afraid of the risk. Start it off as a Superman vehicle, bring in Batman and then introduce more along the way. Tie in all three movies together in a 9 hour trilogy. Whatever characters are best received by the public then give them their solo flicks. Like Colors said, do Avengers in reverse. Give some good director the autonomy that Peter Jackson had with LOTR, film them all concurrently. Only way to not seem as though they are apeing Avengers, which is an inevitable opinion, is to go big and grandiose. Take it as seriously as LOTR was taken and give the JL the same respect as LOTR was given. Anything short of this is really going to struggle in my opinion.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

Stockslivevan wrote:All I'm saying is that I think if done right it could work.

Can you remind me of what exactly WB has done "right" with their comic book properties recently?

Their track-record speaks for itself.

I said if.

If they where to do a shared verse now. Ideally it would be best to start it off with mos. Since we have superman powers and all can be a good way to show other metas can exist together. Throw off some nods to ww or about a flash city, etc..... deal. And have mos be dc's ironman and start a new film verse off. Then get ww/flash off the as solo films and get them connected one way or another. If not that. Go with wf idea to set up a new connected batman. And then get to jl down a bit.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

I expect to see Cavill in the JLA film. I also expect to hear of some additional shooting on 'MOS', so they can throw in references to other DC characters.

First though we've actually got to see something from THE MAN OF STEEL. Anything.

Remember this?

Stockslivevan wrote:I don't see the trouble of having different actors in different films series. The characters should be larger than the actors themselves, they're the real draw. Because MARVEL STUDIOS does it one way doesn't make it a rule IMO.

If Avengers had only hit $300'ish million in the US, I'd argue you may have a point. That movie's grosses though indicate Marvel has really hit upon something. Yes, Avengers is a good, entertaining film on its own merits. But I'm not prepared to discount the importance of the shared universe aspect.

The other angle here is that to make JLA a separate continuity unto itself effectively makes it competition against the solo franchises. At that point, it's every man for himself.

There is a previous model we can look back upon for observation as to how that'll play out- SV vs. Singerman. In 2006 and probably up through at least the middle or end of 2008, most fans came down on one side or the other. Yeah, there were a few peasants who claimed to dislike both. These are probably the same fuckwits who say they're "independents" when they answer political surveys. But they were rare, probably less than 1 in 20. In the main, the core fans were onboard with one and were not onboard with the other. It became a Pepsi vs. Coke thing on fucking steroids. The sheer existence of this forum is owed to this nonsense. If the Eunuch had been taking care of his business, we'd probably all be members on that page. Or if not him and if not there, someone/some place else.

The mere existence of this forum indicts your argument.

Now, the easy answer from hand-wringing, self-loathing fanboys is that core fans usually only a comprise a small segment of any movie's ticket-buying audience. Well, maybe so, but the fact of the matter is that movie studios want us on their side when they make these films. If you doubt me, I'd like to hear the explanation for why the San Diego Comic Con gets special treats, previews, Q&A's and other shit that mass audiences never even hear about, and usually before the official marketing campaign begins.

Giving us two competing adaptations blew the fuck up in WB's face last time. I'm not claiming they wouldn't do it again but I will say that they'd be idiots if they did, esp with Singerman/Smallville and Avengers serving as very clear and very painful object lessons.

A shared universe is non-negotiable these days. Marvel has made the old model of each character having his own little fiefdom entirely obsolete.

Oh yeah, one other thing. If we must have a separate JLA continuity, as retarded as that idea is, I think we can safely assume it won't include His Routhy Blandness anywhere near the proceedings. WB has made a lot of foolish decisions when it comes to adapting comics into film but they obviously never even considered BJ The Bartender for the first attempt at a JLA movie or for the reboot. So why would JLA ver. 2.0 be any different? Hell, under those circumstances, it might actually be worth it to give Joe Manganiello a call just to see what's up. That'd be my move.

Yup would be a big mistake to have routh ever back. At this rrate if he ever touches a superman project it likely just be a voice work deal like how daly and the other guy have done, or conroy for batman. But even that I can't really see happening any time soon. But I so agree why do separate things and have conflicting actors/looks/views/etc.... you confuse the viewers, fans/general audience. Plus look at marketing and license stuff flooding the market with different things you loose money all over the board.

Now really the whole separate thing could have worked if sr, gl, hex had all turned out to be good films. Then you might have some reasons to keep things apart. But since they all failed. And as we can see the way marvel laid the work downe and showed mixing reality, science, magic and differening heroes can work. Its really the best way to go about things. Sure folks will say oh dc just ripping off marvel. But I for one would mind that. Marvel shown this is the right way to do things. Then hedging bets and blowing everything on jl film that could tank. And then that def kills the chance for solor flash/ww/gl/aquaman/etc.... films for another generation.

It probably would be best to make the new dc movie verse with mos. So we make superman the first known public hero like the comics. So a believeable world and characters. But a place where metas/magic can work and not look goofy or wrong. Then do a sequel for mos. But also in that time get at least a film out for ww/flash and/or aquaman at least two or all three of these guys. Then a solo batman film which would bbe a new take on bats who can work and fit with supers. If you do get a new batman out before then either do a wf film to debut new batman with superman. Or leave it to jl so then a new batman and a new gl can be worked off there. And we don't have to waste whole film on intro all heroes. And at least with gl. We could always go for one of the other lanterns or just be hal again with a diffeent actor.

thecolorsblend wrote:

Stockslivevan wrote:I don't see the trouble of having different actors in different films series. The characters should be larger than the actors themselves, they're the real draw. Because MARVEL STUDIOS does it one way doesn't make it a rule IMO.

If Avengers had only hit $300'ish million in the US, I'd argue you may have a point. That movie's grosses though indicate Marvel has really hit upon something. Yes, Avengers is a good, entertaining film on its own merits. But I'm not prepared to discount the importance of the shared universe aspect.

The other angle here is that to make JLA a separate continuity unto itself effectively makes it competition against the solo franchises. At that point, it's every man for himself.

There is a previous model we can look back upon for observation as to how that'll play out- SV vs. Singerman. In 2006 and probably up through at least the middle or end of 2008, most fans came down on one side or the other. Yeah, there were a few peasants who claimed to dislike both. These are probably the same fuckwits who say they're "independents" when they answer political surveys. But they were rare, probably less than 1 in 20. In the main, the core fans were onboard with one and were not onboard with the other. It became a Pepsi vs. Coke thing on fucking steroids. The sheer existence of this forum is owed to this nonsense. If the Eunuch had been taking care of his business, we'd probably all be members on that page. Or if not him and if not there, someone/some place else.

The mere existence of this forum indicts your argument.

Now, the easy answer from hand-wringing, self-loathing fanboys is that core fans usually only a comprise a small segment of any movie's ticket-buying audience. Well, maybe so, but the fact of the matter is that movie studios want us on their side when they make these films. If you doubt me, I'd like to hear the explanation for why the San Diego Comic Con gets special treats, previews, Q&A's and other shit that mass audiences never even hear about, and usually before the official marketing campaign begins.

Giving us two competing adaptations blew the fuck up in WB's face last time. I'm not claiming they wouldn't do it again but I will say that they'd be idiots if they did, esp with Singerman/Smallville and Avengers serving as very clear and very painful object lessons.

A shared universe is non-negotiable these days. Marvel has made the old model of each character having his own little fiefdom entirely obsolete.

I don't think the existence of SV really hurt SR (that did the job itself). SV was on WB/CW being watched by mostly fans or shippers, it was never as big as any of the other shows that aired at the time. Heck, the networks had changed its timeslot a lot over the years. I remember LOST being the main reason the took it off the Wednesday slot and that the next season had noticeable budget cuts. Then there were the fans that were angry Welling wasn't going to be in the film, but that turned out to be a very small group when it came to criticisms over SR.

Also, my biggest peeve: Why does everything have to be competition in the fanbase? I just never understood that. I'm the kind of guy that can enjoy BOTH interpretations of Batman (there's campy then there's dark) but it always seems like there are fans who "take sides" and try to claim one is more valid than the other. What's the point? So you could feel better about your favorite show or film? Like what you like, but don't hate on something else just as some bizarre way of supporting what you like. I hated STAR TREK: VOYAGER, but that was not because I was a huge fan of STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE, it was because I actually thought VOYAGER sucked.

Anyway, from my experience the fan feuds have for the most part been a microcosm in franchises. The STAR WARS prequels divided the fanbase in a big way, but that more so for the fan base and extremely less outside of that. The prequels still made money and broke box office records despite of that. Then there's the divide that was made over the casting of Daniel Craig as James Bond, it almost seemed like a big deal at the time because fan reactions were huge, but in the end it didn't mean shit and the films became international blockbusters.

Singerman WASN'T "another interpretation" of Superman. That is why I hate that piece of shit with a passion.

Stockslivevan wrote:I don't think the existence of SV really hurt SR (that did the job itself). SV was on WB/CW being watched by mostly fans or shippers, it was never as big as any of the other shows that aired at the time.

I never advanced that argument. In fact, I would say, to the extent it was a factor at all, SV helped Singerman. The issue is that dual live action adaptations became a point of contention among core fans. Lines got drawn in the sand and, largely, didn't ever get crossed. The very existence of this forum proves me right.

THAT is the problem with setting up a JLA in its own continuity.

Stockslivevan wrote:Also, my biggest peeve: Why does everything have to be competition in the fanbase?

Because that's just reality. I can't tell you why it happens, only that it will. Now, one could argue that it was exacerbated by how shitty Singerman was and how it attracted a specific type of "fan". And there may even be something to that. But either way you look at it, dual adaptations simply. Won't. Work. It's a demonstrably bad fucking idea.

Stockslivevan wrote:Anyway, from my experience the fan feuds have for the most part been a microcosm in franchises.

With all due respect, did you not read my post? I realize I blabbered away a lot but this very point was covered. The studios NEED core fans on their side. Again, if they don't, why do they spend all that time and money setting up Q&A's and shit at San Diego Comic Con? We're the first audience they attempt to woo before the main publicity machine kicks into gear. And setting up competing live action adaptations of the same character(s) has a bad history going for it. Alienating your primary fanbase (which is what competing universes do just by showing up) is the exact wrong way to start.

Hey! MORE good news!!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/56293

The JUSTICE LEAGUE Movie In The Works Is Supposedly "Not At All What You Might Expect"
Published at: Jun 07, 2012 11:48:06 PM CDT

The Kidd here...

So now that Warner Bros. is moving forward with trying to bring together a JUSTICE LEAGUE movie with Will Beall penning the script, you have to be curious as to how they're planning to attack the DC Comics superhero ensemble.

Are they going to go the fun and more comic-y route that Marvel chose with THE AVENGERS, which has paid off handsomely for them, or are they going to try to maintain the dark and gritty feel that Christopher Nolan made work for his Batman trilogy? If you believe Mark Millar, who supposedly has some inside info, it's going to be the latter.

Posting in the forums of MillarWorld, Millar lays out what he's been hearing about the direction of JUSTICE LEAGUE...

A pal of mine is good friends with the new Justice League screenwriter and said his take on the team is incredible. Very real-world and not at all what you might expect. WB has a chequered history with their superhero characters. They're great with their boy wizards, but less consistent with their DC stable. But my chum said that this could be a thing of beauty and has been in the works for a little while now, not just an avengers knock-off. Best of luck to them. The tidbits I heard sound quite dark and mature, which isn't what I expected. But word on Gangster Squad is great too so I feel this is in really good hands.

A friend of a friend isn't usually the most reliable way to relay information, but I'm willing to believe it, if for no other reason than everyone has been trying to duplicate the Nolan model for any superhero they can get their hands on the last few years, with the exception of Marvel Studios. All we've heard is dark and gritty Superman, Spider-Man, now JUSTICE LEAGUE, with THE DARK KNIGHT being the bar they've been aiming to meet. However, not all superheroes are made with that tone in mind, and sure, they'll have Batman in tow here, but that doesn't mean it'll work for the group as a whole.

I'm all for seeing a good JUSTICE LEAGUE flick... God knows DC Comics is in need of a worthwhile film franchise outside of Batman. I'm just not sure that "dark and mature" is the way to go here.



-Billy Donnelly

"The Infamous Billy The Kidd"