DUMB: JUSTICE LEAGUE WON’T SYNC UP WITH SNYDER’S SUPERMAN

This seems extraordinarily stupid, and repeats the stupidity of what would have happened if this had been made and released as planned: two cinematic versions of one of WB's/DC's most iconic characters. Snyder's Superman AND a different version - from the same studio! - in less than a year?

I've gone from mildly intrigued to actively against. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Who wants to bet this isn't a permanent decision? I do because it's retarded.

Eh. I find it hard to get worked up one way or the other, as I seriously doubt this project is ever going to move beyond pre-production.

Well, it's not a GREAT business decision, but who cares? You can still do this and have Justice League make tons of cash. I mean, how many people out there see sequels without seeing the original, right?

What this means to me is that Green Lantern is going to be a big, iron Man 2-sized step into the shared universe (I hear they've added a LOT of references to the collective DC universe in the movie). It ALSO means that, being that the separation is Nolan's demand, that the "big idea" he concocted for Superman may be something really different and unusual.

This is an interesting concept. I'd say half of what makes The Avengers movie exciting is not just the combination of characters but the combination of actors. The idea of Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffallo, Samuel L. Jackson, Jeremy Renner and Scarlett Johannson bouncing off each other is an exciting concept.

I can't help but feel, however, that any JLA movie would be more archetypal than fueled by character (which Grant Morrison pulled off during his run, anyway, so maybe that's how it should be). Maybe it doesn't matter if the same actors play the characters, as long as they play the icon?

Still, this is not my preference. The idea of a Brandon Routh/Christian Bale Superman vs. Batman movie was briefly exciting during the days of 2006. This JLA movie with random actors feels unnecessary. I'd rather have the Wachowskis do their Plastic Man script from like fifteen years ago.

This is clearly the only way they can do their movies if the WB is serious about constantly re-booting the franchises. You can't have the cross-pollination that Marvel is doing if things are going to be changing all the time. At least in my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreMrNiceGaius 

Who wants to bet this isn't a permanent decision? I do because it's retarded.

If it is even a decision that has been made at all.  Presumably the Justice League film is only in the treatment stage, if even that far along.  There is no way they would be talking about casting at this point, beside the obvious notion of them having a new Batman.  Also, even if there has been some internal discussion among the execs, why and how would Snyder be privy to such information.  I doubt he will have any input on the eventual film itself, so how would he know if they plan on using Henry Cavill or not.  Couple that with the fact that this project probably won't grace screens until 2014 at the earliest (the announced year is beyond unrealistic) and likely doesn't have a writer attached to do a serious draft yet (if there was, we'd likely know), this is Snyder just spreading rumors.  Let's also not overlook the fact that Henry Cavill has most certainly signed a multi-film contract................probably the standard 3 films with an option for a 4th.  With that in mind, does anyone really think that Warner Bros would cast a new Superman when they already have an actor locked into a deal where his pay rate is likely already set in place?  I think not.

Now that I have had time to think about it, I'm wondering if this is just Snyder and/or WB spreading rumors to see what the fans have to say.  Are we interested enough in The Man of Steel at this point to get up in arms about the possibility of the inevitable Justice League film NOT taking place within the same continuity and using the same actor?  If so, then it is a smart gamble on their part because the fan outcry is already spreading like wildfire.  More than likely though, Snyder is just spouting off about something that he isn't even in the loop on.  It makes sense for Warner Brothers to reboot Batman after TDKR, instead of trying to shoehorn the Nolan films into whatever continuity they have planned.  It DOESN'T make sense for them to not start including Green Lantern and Superman: The Man of Steel though, since both are fresh starts for either franchise and could easily be channeled into an eventual Justice League film without hindering what work has already been done.  I won't be shocked at all if Hal Jordan and/or Green Lantern are mentioned in passing in the Superman flick at some point.  You don't need Ryan Reynolds appearing on screen to link them.  Hell, just have something come up in a staff conference at the Daily Planet..................with one of the reporters making a vague mention to the GL film.  It gives you a way to tie the franchises together without having to slap the audience in the face with it like Iron Man 2 did with most of its references.

What's the point in having a Justice League film hit screens in a few years if they don't use Ryan Reynolds and Henry Cavill?  Audiences can accept cast change-ups, but if you give them a Superman film with Cavill...............then a JL film with a different actor................and then a Supes sequel with Cavill again, they are just going to get confused and/or pissed off.  Even casual moviegoers that I work with are confused already at the prospect of Tobey Maguire not being Spider-Man next year and "the dude that looks like Christopher Reeve" not being Superman next year.  To change it up again could be poisonous, especially if people end up digging Cavill in the role (and especially Reynolds in his).  Bad business move.  Give the people what they want and if they don't want Green Lantern and the new Supes..........................then there is no point in doing Justice League in the first place.  If they fail this year and next, there is no way JL will be made anyway.

Do you think people would flock as easily to Avengers if they thought Downey wouldn't be playing Iron Man?  There are already plenty that are mad that Norton isn't coming back and the same would happen if Thor & Cap catch on and those actors didn't return.  I'm not talking about cinephiles or comic fans either.  I'm talking about normal people I work and/or interact with on a daily basis that just go to the movies for fun.

Well, if anything, this is yet another in for Brandon Routh!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

Well, it's not a GREAT business decision, but who cares? You can still do this and have Justice League make tons of cash. I mean, how many people out there see sequels without seeing the original, right?

 

What this means to me is that Green Lantern is going to be a big, iron Man 2-sized step into the shared universe (I hear they've added a LOT of references to the collective DC universe in the movie). It ALSO means that, being that the separation is Nolan's demand, that the "big idea" he concocted for Superman may be something really different and unusual.

Without commenting one way or another on Green Lantern's quality (trailer was meh, but that doesn't mean much), that's a ton of pressure to put on the first installment in a franchise. Trying to simultaneously sell a character and a universe seems like asking for trouble. Iron Man 2 coasted a lot on good will from the first film and solid casting, but if it had been the first installment in the series I think people would have been less likely to give the awkwardly inserted "world-building" stuff a pass. 

I'm inclined to agree with the "messiness isn't a good thing" line of thinking. It sends out the wrong kind of message, not that it would dissuade me personally from seeing all of the flicks. However, not everyone may be that forgiving of such inconsistency of course.

This whole thing just reaffirms how smartly Marvel has gone about this. Now I understand the need for WB to put artists first and allow them to fully explore their vision. The problem is that the main creative force (Nolan) behind this is a guy who doesn't love the DCU. I'm sure the eventual Superman movie that Snyder and Nolan cook up will be fine, better than Superman Returns, but from the studio's perspective is this wise? That means that they have to undo all the marketing that goes behind the individual Batman and Superman franchises if the JL versions are a departure and that also means they can't leverage the marketing at all. I know I sound like a studio guy but I'm just trying to get into their headspace and find the rationale.

It's a win for Nolan, at least on paper, as I'm sure the upside for him is developing vanity projects like INCEPTION post-TDKR. But I think Pop Z's concern is valid: Nolan's not a huge comic fan/nerd. I remain unconvinced he's the guy to be shepherding WB/DC's forward push for reboots and new franchises.

The more I think about this, the dumber it is, and the more hopeful I am Robinov's just talking out of his ass. For one thing, he's now starting to taking attention away from two tentpole movies that haven't even filmed yet; they run the risk of moviegoers knowing JL is coming out and becoming less interested in TDKR and Supes. Releasing two versions of Superman within 6 months of each other - and two versions of Batman within a year - seems like abysmally stupid planning and brand dilution.

Honestly? I tihnk the audience who could make a JLA film a $300million smash really couldn't give a crap about whether its versions of Batman and Superman are in continuity with the previously released films. If you're trying to think like WB the rationale is obvious - they can make a packet off of the Nolan/Snyder iterations and still pay peanuts for a lower-wattage cast on JLA.

Renn I think you're wrong about this.

Its better to have them exist in their own universes.  This shared universe strategy is foolish.

Just look at what happened to Iron Man 2.  Why was it such a shitty film?  Why is the whole franchise formless?  Because it has to sync up with an Avengers film.  And this means creative risks cannot be taken.  Faveraeu even confirmed this.

Having Snyders Superman trilogy, or however many films, be self contained means he can give his vision of a complete satisfying story, without having to worry how it will affect a potential JL movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nabster 

Renn I think you're wrong about this.

 

Its better to have them exist in their own universes.  This shared universe strategy is foolish.

 

Just look at what happened to Iron Man 2.  Why was it such a shitty film?  Why is the whole franchise formless?  Because it has to sync up with an Avengers film.  And this means creative risks cannot be taken.  Faveraeu even confirmed this.

 

Having Snyders Superman trilogy, or however many films, be self contained means he can give his vision of a complete satisfying story, without having to worry how it will affect a potential JL movie.

 

  

Well, ANYTHING can be done. It's just I don't think the studios have the patience or will to do what is necessary to do it right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nabster 

Renn I think you're wrong about this.

 

Its better to have them exist in their own universes.  This shared universe strategy is foolish.

 

Just look at what happened to Iron Man 2.  Why was it such a shitty film?  Why is the whole franchise formless?  Because it has to sync up with an Avengers film.  And this means creative risks cannot be taken.  Faveraeu even confirmed this.

 

Having Snyders Superman trilogy, or however many films, be self contained means he can give his vision of a complete satisfying story, without having to worry how it will affect a potential JL movie.

Iron Man 2 was shitty because it was rushed without locking in the right script. The whole SHIELD thing derailed the second act a fair bit, but that wasn't anywhere near the main problem with it. If Marvel 'forced' Samuel and Scarlett on Favs, he should have cut out Rockwell or Rourke to streamline it.

I don't mind the whole 'reboot' thing with Superhero flicks, like having new Bonds I think you can have new Batmans or Supermans fairly regularly so long as it isn't origin story after origin story, with different people doing different things (I can't wait till someone makes a smallish budgeted Batman detective story). That said, having concurrent interpretations seems really fucking stupid to me as it will just piss off audiences.

If Snyder's Superman is a modest hit, but in the meantime, JLA is huge, what sense would it make to have a Snyder/Cavill sequel? Similarly any momentum that the new Superman has could be lost if JLA is shit and audiences lose interest.

I get the impression they are still gonna go with George Miller's route by using a younger cast, partly as a means to really differentiate JL with their other movies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimoald 

 

Iron Man 2 was shitty because it was rushed without locking in the right script. The whole SHIELD thing derailed the second act a fair bit, but that wasn't anywhere near the main problem with it. If Marvel 'forced' Samuel and Scarlett on Favs, he should have cut out Rockwell or Rourke to streamline it.

 

Agreed. It seems like the popular thing to blame IM2's crappiness on the world-building, but it had much larger problems. I don't disagree they were done awkwardly, but they're really not the film's main problems. The story wasn't compelling; the villains were lackluster; and "Stark as his own worst enemy" was poorly done. There are some really great moments in the film, but it utterly lacks the first film's charm, cohesiveness, and appeal.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimoald 

 

If Snyder's Superman is a modest hit, but in the meantime, JLA is huge, what sense would it make to have a Snyder/Cavill sequel? Similarly any momentum that the new Superman has could be lost if JLA is shit and audiences lose interest.

This. If Robinov is to be believed - and I still think he's more than half talking out of his ass about these matters - WB is pursuing a dumb strategy to make most of these iconic characters.

Personally, if they're thinking of separating the JL movie from the rest of the DC universe films, I'd rather they went fully CG with the characters.  Something in the vein of the Final Fantasy movies.  I'm probably alone in that, but I think it'd be amazing to see something with truly epic scale and yet with more grandeur and spectacle than can be offered by the DC animated cartoons. 

I always have the same problem with the X-Men movies.  Budgetary limitations neuter the scale of the stories.  Mostly, the tone Singer took with the first two movies hid some of it, but when it comes to stuff like the finale in The Last Stand.  Ugh.  It all comes off looking cheap and staged and small.  A live action JL movie would likely never feature Green Lantern, Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman all zig-zagging around some giant monster.  And if it did, it would likely be all CG anyway.

As I said, I'm probably the only person out there wishing for a cartoon instead of a live-action film. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shunderson 

Personally, if they're thinking of separating the JL movie from the rest of the DC universe films, I'd rather they went fully CG with the characters.  Something in the vein of the Final Fantasy movies.  I'm probably alone in that, but I think it'd be amazing to see something with truly epic scale and yet with more grandeur and spectacle than can be offered by the DC animated cartoons. 

 

I always have the same problem with the X-Men movies.  Budgetary limitations neuter the scale of the stories.  Mostly, the tone Singer took with the first two movies hid some of it, but when it comes to stuff like the finale in The Last Stand.  Ugh.  It all comes off looking cheap and staged and small.  A live action JL movie would likely never feature Green Lantern, Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman all zig-zagging around some giant monster.  And if it did, it would likely be all CG anyway.

 

As I said, I'm probably the only person out there wishing for a cartoon instead of a live-action film. 

Hell, I wish they'd just make a JLU movie with the original cast, but unfortunately I don't think either is gonna happen.

Sure, its probably possible.  But the level of planning involved and the nature of film-making, makes it too difficult to happen properly.

Lots of movies film with rushed scripts, but the film makers are able to sculpt the film and the script on the spot.  Whereas, Faverau has specifically said Marvel tied his hands as to what he could do in Iron Man 2, due to the planned Avengers film. 

The thing is if they exist in a shared universe, the point will be so that they can team up in a movie like JLA or Avengers.  So anything that could possibly jeopardize this will not be allowed, this destroys creative risk taking.  And if a shared universe does exist, none of the franchises can be ended since the team up films depend on this universe.  And this is one of the reasons the shared universe sucks.  Its like mainstream comics.  They never end.  You need an end for a great story.  Continuity replaces actual story telling.

Are we better off with getting middling uneventful films like Iron Man 2, or even Incredible Hulk, all leading to an Avengers film with the same actors?  Our would it be better if the studios let an amazing film director create their own awesome trilogy, and allows them to end it their own way?  The answer is obvious.  This current strategy of a shared universe is a horrible one. 

Too many comic book films feel like the first episode of many to come, rather than the first act in an awesome story that will eventually come to a conclusion.

Marvel's shared universe is wrongheaded and, mark my words, ultimately crippling.  Give me a Legends of the Dark Knight reinvention every film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nabster 

The thing is if they exist in a shared universe, the point will be so that they can team up in a movie like JLA or Avengers.  So anything that could possibly jeopardize this will not be allowed, this destroys creative risk taking.  And if a shared universe does exist, none of the franchises can be ended since the team up films depend on this universe.  And this is one of the reasons the shared universe sucks.  Its like mainstream comics.  They never end.  You need an end for a great story.  Continuity replaces actual story telling.

 

Are we better off with getting middling uneventful films like Iron Man 2, or even Incredible Hulk, all leading to an Avengers film with the same actors?  Our would it be better if the studios let an amazing film director create their own awesome trilogy, and allows them to end it their own way?  The answer is obvious.  This current strategy of a shared universe is a horrible one. 

All good points. The middle ground would be nice, though - the shared universe with a bit of auteurship oversight. Honestly, I think that's what Marvel is trying to do, it's why they've hired directors who can also write. Joss Whedon offered some polishes on Captain America en route to The Avengers, a film which itself will serve as sort of a blueprint for Iron Man 3, Captain America 2, and whatever other Marvel films come out later. Favreau was a good pick in that respect, but the execs put the screws on him in Iron Man 2 because 1) Incredible Hulk wasn't the hit Marvel investors were hoping for, and 2) The decision to postpone Thor from 2010 to 2011 was relatively last minute. Marvel isn't SMART about it, but they're probably going about this the right way. A guy like Shane Black isn't just hired to write and direct Iron Man 3, he's looked towards to come up with ways to link IM 3 to other Marvel universe films. I think this approach is somewhat cheap and sneaky as far as possible WGA guidelines, but it's a way of trying to create one cohesive storyline.

But DC/WB hired Martin Campbell and Zack Snyder. Not guys who have that writer's mentality, who would be willing to sit in a writer's bullpen tossing out story ideas. They're just going to replicate every bad idea the continuity-happy execs want without any oversight, losing every battle that Favreau fought before quitting. Like all movies, this is going to boil down to, do you have the right guys behind the camera?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

Marvel's shared universe is wrongheaded and, mark my words, ultimately crippling.  Give me a Legends of the Dark Knight reinvention every film.

I think Marvel's gamble will pay off with the Avengers movie.  It's a cool mechanism for building hype.  It's just a shame that these movies are so expensive and take so long to produce.  I think the whole idea would work better if they were released as maybe 45 minute mini-stories every few months.  I think the type of continuity they're looking for can't be maintained on one or two movies a year.  A special guest star appearance of a cool hero works well as a twist in a comic book.  It doesn't really work so well when the twist is known three months in advance and is shown in a dozen teasers and trailers.  At least for me, anyway.  I think it's all just too big.  Marvel shouldn't feel beholden to the shared universe.  If Punisher could show up for a surpise cameo or something in an Iron Fist movie?  Awesome.  That makes sense.  But don't cripple a Dr. Strange movie because he doesn't play nicely with movie continuity, for example.

Did I just find myself arguing in favor of a Justice League movie with separate continuity?  Hells bells. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

Marvel's shared universe is wrongheaded and, mark my words, ultimately crippling.  Give me a Legends of the Dark Knight reinvention every film.

This would be incredibly awesome. I also think it would confuse the hell out of Joe and Jane Sixpack. And/or make them give up in disgust.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

Marvel's shared universe is wrongheaded and, mark my words, ultimately crippling.  Give me a Legends of the Dark Knight reinvention every film.

But is it any more crippling or wrongheaded than driving any franchise into the ground? I can see the experiment failing eventually (as with anything on an infinite timeline) but to dismiss it before it's even been attempted, I dunno... The comics are rife with crossovers and have been for decades. Those are the kinds of stories they're telling, for better or for worse. I think if what Marvel is attempting is going to succeed in the short term, they're at least going about it the right way.

When I saw the ending to The Incredible Hulk, a middling film to begin with, I strongly suspected that Marvel had no idea what they were doing with the shared universe thing. This was confirmed when I saw the complete mess that is Iron Man 2. I fall on the side of not really buying that JLA will make it to the screen by 2013. Robinov may want it bad, but if he's smart, he'll give it until 2014 or 2015 (though I personally don't give a shit if it ever happens).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pop Zeus 

 

But is it any more crippling or wrongheaded than driving any franchise into the ground?
 

Yes, because then you run the risk of driving several franchises into the ground. Let a movie be a movie, not an advertisement for another movie, or a television pilot writ large*. Also, the shared universe concept in comics has done little more than lead to a glut of horrible, boring, shitty crossovers and "big events" designed to snatch the wallets of gullible, obsessive-compulsive geeks.

*Whatever one thinks of Nolan's Batman films, he at least understands this.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

 

 

Yes, because then you run the risk of driving several franchises into the ground. Let a movie be a movie, not an advertisement for another movie, or a television pilot writ large*. Also, the shared universe concept in comics has done little more than lead to a glut of horrible, boring, shitty crossovers and "big events" designed to snatch the wallets of gullible, obsessive-compulsive geeks.

 

 

 

 

*Whatever one thinks of Nolan's Batman films, he at least understands this.
 

I gotta disagree with your characterization of crossovers. Yeah, there are those high-profile BS crossovers that you're referring to, but there are more often natural, small-scale crossovers where it makes sense that 2 heroes or villains might bump into each other and team-up for a spell. And some pretty exciting stories can come from that. It can shed new light on worn-out characters that otherwise might be typecast in a story. And it makes the world they live in feel more interconnected.

Wrt the DCU, I'll admit to being completely in the tank for Bruce Timm's JLU show. And that particular show had a ball with a large shared universe. Not saying that would translate to live-action directly, but the scale of villainy on the show was pretty damn impressive.