Here is hoping that it is good. To be honest I don't know why DC is so behind of Marvel when it comes to movies. Other than Nolan's Batman series, they are so behind Marvel it is ridiculous. Especially since their animated property has pretty good quality.
Because WB owns DC and they have other movies/products to fall back to make money on while Marvel Studios, before they were owned by Disney, had to churn out movies in order to make money. Of course it helps that the majority of stuff Marvel studios makes is good and makes a profit therefore Disney leaves them alone. I think if Green Lantern was a hit we would have had another DC superhero movie already filmed and ready to be released but because it bombed WB is scared. There's no reason why a new DC movie shouldn't be out at least once a year like the Marvel films are. Marvel is just run so much better than DC/WB its scary. If Superman isn't a hit then DC is beyond screwed and could definitely see them canceling the JL movie. I'm personally not excited to see a JL movie simply because I'm nervous they will screw up the next Batman series.
I'll be honest....aside from Batman I think DC characters suck....badly....very badly. Marvel IMO has much more compelling characters and it leads to much better movies.
I agree. I've never been a Superman fan (although I'm kind of excited to see the new movie) but I have zero interest in Green Lantern or The Flash etc. Marvel absolutely has better heroes.
I do agree that Marvel Studios had to make money, however both Spider-Man and X-Men, which are made by Sony and Fox had to be successful for Marvel to get the backing to form their own studio. The fact that WB owns DC, gives DC more control over their property, which is something Marvel did not have with Spider-Man and X-Men. It should give them an advantage, to help prevent their own Daredevils/Elektras.
That might be true, however before their movies I had no interest in Iron Man, Thor or Captain America. In fact, I was never a fan of the Avengers.
Solid points. I had zero interest in the Thor movie and was only mildy excited about an Avengers movie (I thought there would be too many characters/storylines/arches to fit in 1 movie) and but of those blew away my expectations and I love both films. So making a good movie can do wonders with fan interest. I guess the big thing is for the studios to make GOOD movies and not just an excuse to sell more toys. If they do fans will go out to see them.
New rumor is JGL is in talks to star in Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy which would lead to him being in The Avengers 2. If he is cast in GoG, you can bet that he has zero chance of being the new/next Batman in JL as that's no way Marvel and DC would share him nor let him star in opposing films.
Read an interesting piece on this movie today. Essentially, Batman would be a reluctant participant in this League given the otherworldly nature of the rest of them, feeling that they have too much power. I actually find that to be interesting and a pretty good approach to Batman's character in this. Having him basically run operations from their office or hideout or whatever and not really seeing any action until perhaps the end is probably a great way to keep JGL or whoever plays him, fresh. The focus really needs to be on Superman and whatever character they plan on hyping beyond him, be it Wonder Woman or Flash. Personally, I go with Flash who appears to have a part of Tony Stark in him with regards to wanting to be in front of the camera.
That's the basic approach the animated series took. Batman basically does whatever he wants, up to including saving their asses and banging Wonder Woman. After time, he becomes more involved all the while bringing in guys like Green Arrow (humans with no powers) to be the conscious and police of the JL. It works, because every last one of them, including Superman, fear Batman. If you never watched the series JL and JLU you're missing out big time. I honestly don't think there is anyway the live action movies will be as good actually.
Yeah, the JL and JLU were still some of the best animated hero cartoons ever. big bummer they didn't continue it. The new Young Justice is OK, and getting better, but still a dropoff
Obviously it would never happen but they should just leave Batman out of the JL movie or just have him in as a quick cameo. He just doesn't fit in with the rest of the group being the only human without super powers, especially if they're going to explore other worlds/universes. I just think it would do way more harm than good for the character. Or just make a really awesome Pixar type animation movie.
I understand that but I just don't think they will do his character justice (no pun intended) in any JL movie and I think it would hurt the character in any subsequent solo movie. I know it would never happen, hence why I said it in my original post but I think it would make more sense to either have Batman in a small short cameo role or just not appear at all. Personally I think WB is going about the JL movie all wrong and instead of slowly building it up with solo movies first like Marvel did, they're rushing to get it out just to get it out. And I think by having Batman appear with Superman etc and taking out the appeal of realism with his character out it will hurt the character, especially if this is the first appearance of the "new" Batman where his character and world isn't previously set up already. The mainstream viewer, whether right or wrong, will be expecting to see Nolan's Batman or at least a version like it. I'm all for a really well done animation/Pixar type verison of the JL for a movie, I just have no interest in seeing a live action verison simply because I think it would ruin the Batman character having him fight these supernatural/alien bad guys along side other super powered superheroes. Now if WB stepped back and decided to reboot Batman first, then have solo films for Wonder Woman, Flash and a second Superman movie then maybe I would welcome it a bit more but I just think there's much higher risk involved than reward. It has potential to ruin the next Batman series and possibly the new Superman series before it has a shot to get it off the ground and stand on its own.
To build on your cameo idea, I think they could incorporate Batman successfully w/o any kind of reboot. he doesn't have to be on the front of fighting an armada. he could be doing detective work, uncovering conspirators, fighting earth-born villians, coordinating attacks from the batcave... It wouldn't be great as the cartoons, but it could still work with the right director. most of the fighting would be done by SUperman, Green Lantern, Flash and Wonder BOobies.
I agree but there's no way the studio doesn't have Batman fighting along side with the other heroes. There's no way he's not one of the main focus points of the movie. The problem though is IF the JL movie bombs or is met with lukewarm success it will hurt the next Batman movie or series, perhaps even delay it or scrap plans completely, same can be said for any solo Superman movies too. Ditto for any stand alone movies with WW, Flash or another Green Lantern movie. I just think WB is going about this wrong and not building fan interest of the characters first and letting them get established. They're hoping and banking on names of the heroes bringing people out to the movies. The Avengers didn't make over a billion dollars just on the superhero names alone, it helped with having good stand alone movies, hype and making a good team up movie. Right now does anyone really care about seeing Green Lantern, Wonder Woman or the Flash right now? The die hards, sure but they're going to see the movie anyway, it's the mainstream movie goer they need to go see it. I admit I didn't really care to see a Thor movie but the one Marvel put out was great and made me be a fan of the character and want to see more of him in movies. They should give people good solo films first to get people excited and want to see these characters in a team up film. Of course WB is banking on Man of Steel to do well and the Batman name helping sell the film. If Man of Steel underperforms or does poorly there's a good chance JL gets scrapped. Much like solo films of WW and The Flash were after Green Lantern bombed.
I wonder if the problem is that DC and WB just don't feel that stand alone Wonder Woman and Flash movies can be successful. They've already done the big 3 - Superman, Batman and Green Lantern. Kind of like how Marvel would have been silly to make a Hawkeye movie.
[video=youtube;hQzbDvcnK4Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_252496&feature=iv&src_vid=Puu_vm3Jcz4&v=hQzbDvcnK4Y[/video] No matter how many years, this intro's epicness will never get old. This IS Batman.
How could they hurt the character more than Nolan did? I look forward to a new Batman. Hopefully the new Batman will be actually a detective who can actually fight. I do agree that the Marvel way is probably the better way to make this film.
I would have loved to see a Hawkeye movie. It could have been done great for a decently small budget.
No its not Batman. Its better than the old Adam West TV show and Joel Schumacher sequels, but that's about it.
I would have to think that a really good Wonder Woman or Flash movie would sell though just based on how popular the superhero/comic movies are right now. They might not break any box office records but with good word of mouth they could probably pull in big numbers much like Thor did. I think the big problem is is that besides the Nolan Batman franchise, WB/DC hasn't put out a movie that made big money since Batman Forever (yes most people hate it but it made big money when it came out). Superman Returns and Green Lantern both flopped big time. WB/DC is really banking on Man of Steel to be a big hit, if not then Superman might be put on the back burner once again. Heck with Green Lantern bombing it killed any hope of Wonder Woman or a Flash movie coming out as both were in early stages of development but once GL tanked those plans were scrapped. First and foremost I think WB/DC should copy Marvel's Avenger plan which was hire a guy to oversee all of the DC comic movies and start with a plan of putting out at least one or two new character movie a year leading up to a JL film. Of course those movies that are being made so be done well or there's no point in doing it. Out of all of the Avenger character movies only Iron Man 2 was considered a bad movie, yet still made a ton of money. And second Hulk movie didn't set the world on fire at the box office but because of how good Iron Man, Captain America and Thor were they were able to keep building the hype. Once you get people to care about the characters they will come and see whatever you put out. But first you need to actually start putting out good movies first. WB/DC's problem is people just don't trust they'll see a good entertaining movie because they have been burned too many times in the past.
You can't be serious with this comment. While you may not have liked Nolan's movies, it doesn't mean Nolan hurt the character. It's kind of hard to argue with 2 out of the 3 films earning over a billion dollars at the box office and completely changing the superhero/comic book movie landscape in the process. When Nolan took over the Batman franchise in movies was dead, now almost 16 years later it's once again the most popular superhero character. So while Nolan's Batman may not be your Batman (to each his own if that's how you feel), saying he hurt the character is completely wrong.
He turned Batman into a pu***. The Dark Knight Rises was one of the worst representations of Batman I have ever seen. Adam Wests Batman at least never quit because his girlfriend died. If Nolan can turn Batman into a crybaby who whines about his girlfriend and the character is still popular, then the next director, having him fight with super powered heroes, is definatly not going to ruin the character.
that's kind of my point. Green Lantern did not do so well, and it's a character rich in backstory. Wonder woman, I could at least see a good mythological based story, but I still think it would do more poorly than Green Lantern. Flash has no backstory (and I'm a fan of flash). lightning hits chemicals, he runs fast. and most of the Flash villians are lame as hell. I went to the theatre to see Green Lantern and still enjoyed it. I doubt I'd see either a W Woman or Flash movie until it hit Netflix. and my comment on Tim Burton's batman. had very little redeeming value whatsoever. getting Mr Mom to play Batman was a complete joke. I couldn't get past that and it ruined it for me. and while I agree with Dupree that having Batman retire for several years was out of character, the rest of Nolan's Batman was the closest representation of what Batman should have been I've ever seen outside of the cartoons.
I would like to point out that I do like Nolan's Batman movies. Batman Begins is a really good movie. The Dark Knight is one of my favorite movies of all time. The Dark Knight Rises I am very up and down. Some parts are really cool, a lot of parts are really, "what were you thinking Nolan?" To be honest I look forward to the influence of Nolan to be reduced from super hero movies. I think people look at what he did and try to emulate it instead of trying to figure out why it worked so well. For instance, Batman Begins works because Batman's origin story is very unknown. What is generally known is his parents are killed, ????, he is inspired by a bat, ????, ????, ????, Batman. Batman Begins works to fill out some of the blanks. The Amazing Spider-Man tried the same thing, however the reason why it wasn't as good is because it created some ???? that didn't need to be there and then didn't explore anything. IMO, once there has been an origin story for a super hero, there doesn't need to be a new one with each reboot. We know the story, tell us new ones. Also The Dark Knight works as a dark movie because Batman works really well as a dark character. Superman does not, unless they change his character or do an elseworld story. I don't mind grounding super heroes, which Nolan did a great job with in his movies. However I don't like taking a super hero and then Nolaning him up. It might not work for that character.
If you think Bruce Wayne quit being Batman because Rachel died then you completely missed the parts in TDKR where it explains why he stopped being Batman. Bruce stopped being Batman because he was no longer needed as Batman because of the lie about Harvey Dent and the Harvey Dent Act that helped clean up the city. He even says so when he visits Gordon in the hospital, he says "Batman was no longer needed because we won". Bruce stopped living his life because he felt like he failed due to the deaths of Rachel and Harvey and his Wayne Enterprise clean energy project failed because it could be turned into a bomb (which was 3 years before the events of TDKR and was said by Miranda Tate), that's when he kept to himself in house, and of course he had nothing to fall back on because he wasn't needed as Batman anymore thus he was lost inside with no purpose. Notice what finally gets him out of the house is him being Batman again, he's waiting for a purpose in his life, something he doesn't have because he's not Batman anymore, because he's not needed due to the city being cleaned up until Bane shows up. Him being depressed about Rachel was also built on a lie and Alfred keeping the note from him, notice once he learns the truth that Rachel wasn't going to end up with him he's able to pursue relationships with both Miranda and Selina. Also in Batman Begins and TDK, Bruce mentions that it's not his plan to be Batman forever. He was doing it until the city was cleaned up and he wasn't needed. He even looks at Harvey to take over his role as city protector only doing it by the book/legally. He was willing to give up being Batman in TDK when The Joker wanted Batman to show his true identity. His goal was Harvey to be the "white knight" and take over as the face of the city so he didn't have to be Batman anymore. Nolan also stated numerous times that "his" Batman wasn't like the comics where he keeps going and going, his Batman has a beginning, middle and end. And because he kept his movies as realistic as possible someone couldn't be Batman for years on years. And Nolan also stated one of the angles he was going with for TDKR was "what if Batman's plans of cleaning up the city actually happened and he wasn't needed anymore" what would he do then? Regardless he didn't ruin the character, even if you didn't like a particular angle he took the character, especially since the movies itself were very good. If you want to look at ruining a character look at Batman & Robin, that's ruining a character. Nothing Nolan did ruined the character, he just took a different spin and approach with it. I don't see anything wrong with what he did as the end product was still a very good movie.
Interesting article/interview with Ben Affleck about the Justice League movie. http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/ben-affleck-sets-the-record-straight-on-justice-league Main takeaway from it was Affleck doesn't even think a script has been written yet for the movie so all these rumors about which characters are in it and what they will be doing might be a bit too premature.
Sorry I missed this post originally but still wanted to comment on it. Really? So you're ok with: - Batman openly killing people - Batman using guns - Having The Joker be the killer of Bruce's parents? - Having Alfred let Vicki Vale into the Batcave after she's known them for what a few weeks if that? - No one in Gotham having any clue who Bruce Wayne is or what happened to his parents? I really enjoy and like Batman '89 but it was many flaws in it.
The only problem with that is now they backed themselves into a corner and the Joker HAD to be killed or he would have known who Batman was (plus it was kind of crazy how when Batman said "you killed my parents" the Joker knew exactly who he was talking about, surely the Joker killed many people in his life) so he couldn't be around for any possible sequels. I too don't think for that movie it was a big deal but for all the people nitpicking small things in the Nolan series (like Batman's voice for example) I'm surprised fans didn't have a bigger issue with Burton changing some of Batman's backstory.
He says he quit because Rachel died in the movie. He turned Batman into a *****. A whiney crying *****. TDK was the worst batman of all batmen. Even George Clooney Batman didn't quit after being Batman after a few years. I know Nolan did his own version of the Batman. I am just saying if Nolan can create a ***** whiney crying horrible at fighting Batman and not ruin the character, having a Batman who can hold his own fighting along side Superman, Martian Manhunter, Green Lantern and the Flash.
I view it all like this. The Nolan movies were the "realistic" Batman. Pretend they really happened, then the comic books, animated shows and other movies are all artistic license taken about the "real" Nolan Batman. That makes it ok to really enjoy the movies but declare the Bruce Timm animated version of Batman to be the best overall Batman there is.
Really, you want to call Batman saving Gordon's kid's life and in the process knocking Dent off the ledge thus killing him murder? And you want to compare that to Batman willingly throwing Joker's men down the bell tower or killing bad guys and then smiling after (like he did in Batman Returns)? Point remains that Burton's "Batman" has major character/movie flaws so one can argue about it being the best representation of Batman. I really think you should go back and rewatch all 3 movies again because I really think you missed the points of Nolan's films. Once again Bruce Wayne quit being Batman because Gotham didn't need him as Batman anymore, NOT because of what happened to Rachel (Bruce may have quit living his life as Bruce Wayne partly because of her death, the other part about his failed Wayne Enterprise clean energy project, but he didn't stop being Batman because of her). His goal of cleaning up the city worked, hence why he stopped fighting crime. Bruce's mission as Batman was NEVER meant to be a long term thing. He wanted to inspired the people of Gotham by being a symbol, something that could be ever lasting, a legend. He did that along with the help of Gordon and to a certain extent Harvey Dent before Harvey flipped out. Because of the Dent cover up and Batman taking the fall, Gordon and the Mayor were able to pass the "Dent Act" which put all criminals behind bars. The city was safe and cleaned up. Batman wasn't needed, therefore Bruce felt he didn't have a purpose anymore. Bruce mentions in Batman Begins to Alfred he would be Batman for as long as it takes to turn Gotham around and Bruce mentions in TDK that he wants Harvey to take his place as the face of the city and someone people can look up to that doesn't have to wear a mask. He also mentions in TDKR that his goal was accomplished and he wasn't needed. It's also stated multiple times by multiple characters that Gotham is crime free. Whether or not you think Nolan turned Batman into a whiney character who can't fight (although I'd like to know which Batman on film was a better fighter than Bale's) you're completely wrong in thinking Bruce quit being Batman because of Rachel. Even Nolan himself has stated Bruce stopped being Batman because his plan actually worked. And give me a break about George Clonney's Batman. If you'd rather see Clooney ice skating after a diamond over any of the Nolan films more power to you but it sounds completely foolish. I get that the hardcore Batman comic fans (I'm assuming that you are so I apologize if I'm wrong) were mad that Nolan's Batman was only Batman for a little of a year and that they feel the "real" Batman would never quit but this is Nolan's version of the character, one that he wanted to be as realistic/grounded as possible. If you or anyone else didn't like it, that's your own opinion and I respect that as not everyone is going to like the same things but Nolan's Batman never intended to be Batman forever and it was clearly stated in every movie what his plans were so expecting him to never quit of keep fighting on and on you were going to be disappointed no matter what. And I get a lot of people didn't like TDKR. I like the film a lot but admit there are things I didn't like or wish were different but I still think it's a damn good film.
