Who Would YOU Pick To Direct A 'Justice League of America' Film?

non_amos wrote:I see now what you're saying but when I posted that I didn't even think of Cameron's 'political leanings', I just thought of the humongous box office blockbusters he's directed.

His last two are 'Titanic' and 'Avatard'.

The first I have never, and will never, see. The second was an insult wrapped-up in fancy CGI.

Plus his films are usually really good.

Used to be.

I even liked Avatar but it is over-rated & does contain said environmental statement.

Yikes. I guess you've never seen 'Dances With Wolves' or 'Pocahontas'?

And yes. Yes it does.

Nevertheless forget Avatar for the moment. How about his 2 Terminator films & his sequel to Ridley Scott's film ALIENS? Those are all big action films & his Terminator films are among my all-time favorites. So I guess I was thinking 'big action, big box office'. I didn't even consider his political views until you brought it up. But couldn't he do a superhero film & leave all that crap out? Or he just wouldn't?

That James Cameron is gone.

Zack Snyder is still probably the most likely candidate though. Duh brothers, make him your Joss Whedon equivalent.

Nope, like I have been saying forever, Brad Bird is the man for the job.

It's really a no-brainer.

Question though would birrd really be an option? I would like I said like to see what he could do. Loved his pixar film and he did well with mi4. But like the one article I posted saying wb likely to say in house. Snyder is a logical choice to go if mos does good business. But even not there is others too. As we talked before. When they do get it going I just hope they pick a suitable guy.

Apologist Puncher wrote:James Cameron can stick with his "Avatard" films, and leave the comic book films for the passionate directors.

Honestly? I kinda have to agree with this. And not just because Brad Bird is the better choice. Part of me just doesn't trust Jim Cameron with the job. And I can't even fully articulate why.

I mean, if things had gone a different way and if somehow the Wachowskis had ended up directing a Superman reboot, I'd have been completely onboard. Without question. The Matrix movies were adaptations of comic books that never existed in the first place, V For Vendetta was enjoyable (if somewhat misguided) and I was the guy who loved the piss out of Speed Racer. If they were to do a JLA movie (or a Batman reboot or whatever), I'd be there with fucking bells on.

It's tough to explain but you either believe in a filmmaker or you don't. You trust him or you don't. And when it comes to Cameron, I just don't.

webhead2006 wrote:Question though would birrd really be an option? I would like I said like to see what he could do. Loved his pixar film and he did well with mi4. But like the one article I posted saying wb likely to say in house. Snyder is a logical choice to go if mos does good business. But even not there is others too. As we talked before. When they do get it going I just hope they pick a suitable guy.

Yes, because this worked so well in the past...

And as far as I remember, Martin Campbell DIDN'T direct 'Casino Royale' for the Bros. Warner. And Singer didn't direct the 'X-Men' films for them either. And Pitof didn't direct 'Vidocq' for them either.

I would have gone for James Cameron maybe like 20 or 30 years ago. But now? The guy's head is too far up his own ass these days that he's forgotten how to properly tell a story without getting repetitive.* I don't care if his last two movies are the two highest grossing films of all time, breaking the box office should be the least of JLA's priorities.


*= Biggest example is his Special Edition cut of ALIENS. The theatrical cut was absolutely perfect the way it was, and all the stuff he added was completely unnecessary and only ruined the suspense and the pace. For me that was a precursor to his later films becoming so bloated, his odd obsession with making his films long as possible. I like TRUE LIES, but did that really need to be two and a half hours long?!

With cameron eco driven stuff if he was to do a hero film now captain planet would def be up his alley.

Shit, a Captain Planet film would be worse thing Cameron ever does.

James Stocks wrote:Shit, a Captain Planet film would be worse thing Cameron ever does.

You beat me to it. How in the fuck that animated propaganda ever made it to the air would be beyond me until you realize the co-creator owned the fucking network.

But yes, it would be right up what Cameron's alley. Or what it's become anyway.

Totally colors, which is why I made my post. He would probably love the eco thing of planet. Though speaking of planet, I am surprise it hasn't been turned into a live action film yet. With all the cartoons turned films over the years.

I must have been the only kid in my generation that never bought into the show, primarily because I thought it was extremely lame how this so called superhero couldn't save the world without depending on a bunch of snot nosed kids. That's why Batman rarely gets rescued by Robin, otherwise that destroys the legend.

webhead2006 wrote:Totally colors, which is why I made my post. He would probably love the eco thing of planet. Though speaking of planet, I am surprise it hasn't been turned into a live action film yet. With all the cartoons turned films over the years.

It's like anything, you have to know your audience. Any honest analysis of the current political climate (and yes, ecology is a political issue) leads to the inescapable conclusion that middle America (ie, mass audiences) won't buy in to global warming paranoia. Not. Fucking. Happening. So either you spend hundreds of millions on this son of a buck anyway with all but a mathematical assurance that the thing is going to tank it at the box office or you wisely mothball what was already a horrible fucking concept and just call it a day.

To be perfectly honest, I'm really surprised they're choosing the latter route considering that in some cases Hollywood goes against the expressed will of the people even more than certain politicians. Anybody who says Hollywood is driven solely by profits hasn't been paying attention to the types of box office bombs they keep releasing.

EDIT- I should add here that when Chris Nolan argues that he doesn't put politics into his Batman movies, I oh-fficially don't believe him anymore. If you can't see political dimensions to TDK and TDKRises... I'm sorry but you're either (A) a WB/Nolan flack or (B) a complete fucking idiot.

There's as much political commentary in Nolan's films as any other comic book flick. One could say Superman flying all the way to Paris to stop the bomb was an allegory of America's foreign policy of getting into the business of other nations around the globe. Of course that's all bullshit. I think because of Nolan's films often being labeled as "intellectual" and such, that everyone starts to over-analyze and draw comparisons. Sometimes a movie about a man dressed as a bat fighting crime is just a movie about a man dressed as a bat fighting crime. If these films are really about political commentary, why does Nolan insist on stating otherwise? None of his other films have ever gotten into politics either.

James Stocks wrote:There's as much political commentary in Nolan's films as any other comic book flick. One could say Superman flying all the way to Paris to stop the bomb was an allegory of America's foreign policy of getting into the business of other nations around the globe. Of course that's all bullshit. I think because of Nolan's films often being labeled as "intellectual" and such, that everyone starts to over-analyze and draw comparisons. Sometimes a movie about a man dressed as a bat fighting crime is just a movie about a man dressed as a bat fighting crime. If these films are really about political commentary, why does Nolan insist on stating otherwise? None of his other films have ever gotten into politics either.

Okay, you're saying you think it's just a big coincidence that one conflict in TDK was the rich white guy spying on an entire city to stop what's basically a terrorist? Or in TDKRises that a bunch of anti-capitalist layabouts invade homes of 1%'ers and basically take over all their stuff and leave filth and squalor in their wakes?

An argument could be made that the Nolans conceptualized those ideas before they were part of the American dialogue. And that would even be true. Even so, it doesn't change the fact that there's an inherent politic behind each those things. It may make Nolan unintentionally topical but both of those things are still clashes of political viewpoints. We have names and nomenclature that Nolan didn't have access to when he developed that stuff but that doesn't change the politics of these things.

EDIT- Look dude, if you honestly don't see it, God bless. But it felt like that stuff was staring me right in the face.

Thing is that a lot of those concepts have been around for a very long time, there's nothing novel about them (especially with TDK's Batman spying as a means of searching for Joker). This is case that reminds me of newspapers having articles about how REVENGE OF THE SITH was a political commentary on the Bush administration. I can understand people might see political trappings in films especially when certain topics come off the more relevant. I'm inclined to give Nolan the benefit of the doubt regarding this one. I just don't see the point of him denying it if he were intentionally injecting political commentary. None of his films are really about that, he's shown more concern for character arcs than politics.

thecolorsblend wrote:Okay, you're saying you think it's just a big coincidence that one conflict in TDK was the rich white guy spying on an entire city to stop what's basically a terrorist? Or in TDKRises that a bunch of anti-capitalist layabouts invade homes of 1%'ers and basically take over all their stuff and leave filth and squalor in their wakes?

An argument could be made that the Nolans conceptualized those ideas before they were part of the American dialogue. And that would even be true. Even so, it doesn't change the fact that there's an inherent politic behind each those things. It may make Nolan unintentionally topical but both of those things are still clashes of political viewpoints. We have names and nomenclature that Nolan didn't have access to when he developed that stuff but that doesn't change the politics of these things.

EDIT- Look dude, if you honestly don't see it, God bless. But it felt like that stuff was staring me right in the face.

Actually colors, I saw something COMPLETELY different.

Those 99%er's who "took over" the homes and possessions of the 1% were given a taste of "Be careful what you wish for". Sure, they got to take the rich down a peg, but look what they did with it. Trashed homes and possessions. A scared, lawless city. Hardly the "Utopia" the Occutards seem to think would come out of taking what they don't deserve.

If anything, it was an indictment of this "false-entitlement" attitude running rampant these days.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Those 99%er's who "took over" the homes and possessions of the 1% were given a taste of "Be careful what you wish for". Sure, they got to take the rich down a peg, but look what they did with it. Trashed homes and possessions. A scared, lawless city. Hardly the "Utopia" the Occutards seem to think would come out of taking what they don't deserve.

If anything, it was an indictment of this "false-entitlement" attitude running rampant these days.

That's basically my point but from the other side. I guess my point suffered in trying to be oblique but basically you could read those elements of TDK and TDKRises as pretty pro-conservative. Maybe even pro-Republican Party. I guess I'd not bothered to consider Nolan's own political persuasions but it really comes off like he takes a pretty high view of the Republican Party. He's denied it (and I would expect nothing else, true or not true) but there's more than enough reason for pause there.

Hell, you maybe could even backtrack that philosophy to Batman Begins, where a foreigner is threatening the city basically with WMD's and a go-it-alone "cowboy" is their best hope. I think that's less clear overall but, still, one could marshal argument.

Problem with the TDK analogy is that Batman acknowledges that the sonar method is wrong, but makes this one exception and then destroys his sonar device the moment it's no longer necessary, so there's more of a grey area Nolan puts his films in than a solid right-wing/left-wing stance. A lot of these kind of stories have been told time and time again throughout humanity's history. The concept of the rich being overthrown by the lower class, that's especially old. Way I see it, Nolan's films are more socially relevant than political. I think my favorite aspect of all this is the optimism he tries to portray, like with the two boats where both refuse to give into the Joker's game and commit murder, showing how far Gotham has come since Batman's influence inspired more good.

Ok... hypothetically though.... if Ben Affleck reads the JL script.... and it was really well done... and WB backs a dump truck of dough on his front lawn... I could totally see him taking up the role of GL/Hal Jordan if he wanted to be in the movie and also direct it. That way, he wouldn't be the number one star of the movie.

I'd move Ryan Reynolds over to the role of the Flash where he was probably better suited with his sense of humour.

Well I wouldn't see him as one of the heros myself. More so after he did the george rreeves bio pic and dd. There was plently of articles/interviews where he said he doesn't want to do those types of films any more. Plus if he would have been a lead rrole and direct. Look at how much time he has to take out of his schedule to make the film and possible sequels and be tied up for many years on jl. When he wouldn't have a lot of time for other acting/directing roles. And he seems more into the directing side nowadays. But I wouldn't mind seeing what he could bring to the table. Maybe he could be like fav and done his comedy films/etc... and make the slash big on irronman type of deal. But on wb side of things I still doubt its going o happen any time soon. They still have no clue how to handle dc films. And everything been all talk frrom them for yrs with little go from them.

webhead2006 wrote:Well I wouldn't see him as one of the heros myself. More so after he did the george rreeves bio pic and dd. There was plently of articles/interviews where he said he doesn't want to do those types of films any more. Plus if he would have been a lead rrole and direct. Look at how much time he has to take out of his schedule to make the film and possible sequels and be tied up for many years on jl.

Um, wtf kind of argument is that? He would be guaranteed work as a director *AND* an actor for the next few years. Not sure what his directing fee is but he probably gets decent money as an actor. Combine the two and that's a tidy profit for him. Plus, this is a "safe" studio movie rather than risking his reputation on more stuff like The Town (which, good as it was, could've gone either way). "He doesn't want to wear a costume!" Who says he has to? He could play Max Lord or Steve Trevor or whoever the civilian liaison will be and bypass capes entirely.

Nolan would do a Batman movie, something else, another Batman, wash, rinse, repeat. Probably as a direct result, he has a good relationship with the studio and can probably make whatever movie he wants to make. If those truly were Affleck's reasons for skipping out on JLA, he's a fucking idiot.

lib wrote:Ok... hypothetically though.... if Ben Affleck reads the JL script.... and it was really well done... and WB backs a dump truck of dough on his front lawn... I could totally see him taking up the role of GL/Hal Jordan if he wanted to be in the movie and also direct it. That way, he wouldn't be the number one star of the movie.

I'd move Ryan Reynolds over to the role of the Flash where he was probably better suited with his sense of humour.

I don't see Affleck playing Green Lantern unless it's someone like Guy Gardner. As for Ryan Reynolds, keep him away from GL! Sure, I liked the film 'OK' but like I've said, even I'll admit that it could've been done better, i.e., the right cast, the right director, the right script, etc. At one time though Reynolds was a favorite to play the Flash but since his GL gig I don't know if that would be wise or not. I lean towards not. Reynolds seems to fair best in his romantic comedies & his sleazeball 'teen' comedies. Personally for a JLA film I think GL ought to be rebooted. Certainly enough time will have passed that the GL film can be dismissed like Ang Lee's Hulk or Singerman. Just like they finally got THE HULK down to a T, the same could be done with GL. GL should be WB's 'Iron Man' but regrettably it ain't. Fix it!

non_amos wrote:I don't see Affleck playing Green Lantern unless it's someone like Guy Gardner. As for Ryan Reynolds, keep him away from GL! Sure, I liked the film 'OK' but like I've said, even I'll admit that it could've been done better, i.e., the right cast, the right director, the right script, etc. At one time though Reynolds was a favorite to play the Flash but since his GL gig I don't know if that would be wise or not. I lean towards not. Reynolds seems to fair best in his romantic comedies & his sleazeball 'teen' comedies. Personally for a JLA film I think GL ought to be rebooted. Certainly enough time will have passed that the GL film can be dismissed like Ang Lee's Hulk or Singerman. Just like they finally got THE HULK down to a T, the same could be done with GL. GL should be WB's 'Iron Man' but regrettably it ain't. Fix it!

The beauty of rebooting GL is that so few people ever watched it that there's probably not very much to overcome in the public mind.

James Stocks wrote:Problem with the TDK analogy is that Batman acknowledges that the sonar method is wrong, but makes this one exception and then destroys his sonar device the moment it's no longer necessary, so there's more of a grey area Nolan puts his films in than a solid right-wing/left-wing stance.

Um, Batman never acknowledges that it's wrong. Lucius says "this is wrong" and Batman replies "we have to find this man". Based on their exchange, I think it's clear that Batman thinks the imperative of his task trumps the ethics of his methods.

thecolorsblend wrote:

non_amos wrote:I don't see Affleck playing Green Lantern unless it's someone like Guy Gardner. As for Ryan Reynolds, keep him away from GL! Sure, I liked the film 'OK' but like I've said, even I'll admit that it could've been done better, i.e., the right cast, the right director, the right script, etc. At one time though Reynolds was a favorite to play the Flash but since his GL gig I don't know if that would be wise or not. I lean towards not. Reynolds seems to fair best in his romantic comedies & his sleazeball 'teen' comedies. Personally for a JLA film I think GL ought to be rebooted. Certainly enough time will have passed that the GL film can be dismissed like Ang Lee's Hulk or Singerman. Just like they finally got THE HULK down to a T, the same could be done with GL. GL should be WB's 'Iron Man' but regrettably it ain't. Fix it!

The beauty of rebooting GL is that so few people ever watched it that there's probably not very much to overcome in the public mind.

Kinda like Singerman.

Ya... I can't see Ben Affleck walk away from JL if the WB throws tons of money at him to make it. Like colors said - He'd be an idiot to not to.

I think after all the bad press he's been through though prior to making his respectful comeback, he'd probably be even more cautious about putting a steamy hot pile of garbage on the big screen as well.

Isn't he a supposed comic book fanboy as well? Wouldn't that bode well for respecting the source material?

I also agree with colors suggestion as well. He may not even decide to be one of the heroes, but just be in the movie as a cameo as a civilian or secondary character so he doesn't have to deal with the pressure of portraying one of the main characters while directing the movie.

And as for Ryan Reynold playing the Flash... I remember when a lot of people said the same thing about Chris Evans when he was cast as Captain America after playing the Human Torch from the Fantastic Four films. A majority of people thought he wasn't right for the part either when it was announced.

I think apart from the story, another poor aspect of the GL film was that Ryan Reynolds was miscast as Hal Jordan. I think he would've been more appropriate as Kyle Rayner. But that's besides the point.