JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AFFLECK?

I'm down with that, he's making some great flicks as a director.  And yes, he would make a great Hal Jordan.

Tons of JLA characters I wouldn't mind Affleck playing: Maritan Manhunter, Aquaman, Red Tornado, Firestorm, Jay Garrick Flash.  Hell, I'd get behind him playing Superman.

Any script impressions floating around?  They're not doing Starro, surely?* 

*I would never stop seeing a JLA vs. Starro movie.

Love what this represents. WB is thinking outside the box. Everyone forgets Chris Nolan was far from the "obvious" guy to reboot Batman. But Insomnia didn't cost much, turned good profit and the studio took a risk with his take. Now look at Nolan!

That said, hope Affleck passes. He could pull it off, but far too interested in his career right now without flying superheroes and one-liners.

Hal Jordan is one of the most bland characters in comics. Any of the other human lanterns are much more interesting characters. 

If the guy's going the superhero route, I kind of wish he'd get another crack at Daredevil from the other side of the camera.

He seemed to be the only one really invested in doing the character justice the first time around, and he's proven he's very skilled with gritty crime films.

See, I think this is such a weird thought-process. I want an interesting film-maker to work on movies, no matter what the material. I don't want more stock directors like Martin Campbell, Louis Leterrier, or Jon Favreau.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D.T. 

If the guy's going the superhero route, I kind of wish he'd get another crack at Daredevil from the other side of the camera.

 

He seemed to be the only one really invested in doing the character justice the first time around, and he's proven he's very skilled with gritty crime films.

 That is exactly why I'd like to see him to the next stand alone bat-film rather than something set in a more homogenized Justice League universe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMcLargeHuge 

 

 

 

See, I think this is such a weird thought-process. I want an interesting film-maker to work on movies, no matter what the material. I don't want more stock directors like Martin Campbell, Louis Leterrier, or Jon Favreau.

No doubt Campbell has hit his vertical limit from time to time, but he's also made some great genre films over the years. You could do worse. I think half the problem in Green Lantern was saddling him with a weal character portrayed by a lousy leading man. Individual sequences in that movie (mostly the ones devoid of Reynolds) worked for me, especially the initial Paralax attack on the ship. That was an excellent, scary moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMcLargeHuge 

Hal Jordan is one of the most bland characters in comics. Any of the other human lanterns are much more interesting characters. 

BLASPHEMY!!!

And here I was secretly hoping he'd get offered to take over Batman....

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamnDirtyApe 

BLASPHEMY!!!

And here I was secretly hoping he'd get offered to take over Batman....

After Nolan's gritty, hyper realistic take, do we really need a Batman from the director of The Town and Gone Baby Gone?  Affleck is awesome, but I can't take another round of that shit.

Then don't watch it. From what you've said in the past you're not a comic book guy anyway, so you wouldn't be missing out. Although TDKR left me with a feeling of exhiliration and satisfaction, I'm still planning on fitting myself out of the superhero movie scene. Unless someone is waiting around the corner to deliver something in the genre with a true and unique vision, I can't be all that bothered right now.  

BigMcLargeHuge, Hal Jordan was a...Whiner in Green Lantern The Film. Movie Hal was depressed about never living up to his father's Legend. In the comics he was a Cocky Test Pilot, a...Daredevil, if you will.  It could be a great choice for Affleck.  I think of Tom Cruise as Maverick in Top Gun.  That is Hal Jordan.  Hal Jordan is my...Favorite Green Lantern.  The John Stewart Lantern would be fine as well.  Get Dennis Haysbert!  Just do not cast the comic news guy John Stewart, that would be the...John Stewart Lantern in...Name only!

I think this may be too big for Affleck.  Stick to the medium sized moves.

If they want to get this right they need a guy who understands comics like Whedon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber 

Tons of JLA characters I wouldn't mind Affleck playing: Maritan Manhunter, Aquaman, Red Tornado, Firestorm, Jay Garrick Flash.  Hell, I'd get behind him playing Superman.

 

Any script impressions floating around?  They're not doing Starro, surely?* 

 

*I would never stop seeing a JLA vs. Starro movie.

Man, I hope they use Starro. And, with Affleck being hired, I'm hoping all the League members now have thick Boston accents, too. 

I wonder if Affleck's ever read a Justice League comic before?

You'd think so from hanging around with Kevin Smith and all....

I would watch an Affleck JLA only if he casts himself in a cameo role as Aquaman, one eyed, one handed talker to fish. Just so we could get a scene where Batman says "I think he is too crazy to be of any help. Let's leave him in the sea."

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMcLargeHuge 

See, I think this is such a weird thought-process. I want an interesting film-maker to work on movies, no matter what the material. I don't want more stock directors like Martin Campbell, Louis Leterrier, or Jon Favreau.

WTF? Jon Favreau deserves better than to be called a "stock director". His last two movies may have been disappointing, but that's no reason to just dismiss him as a hack. Based on some of the movies he did before them, I still have faith in his ability to put out great movies in the future...he just needs to choose his scripts more carefully.

Also, Duke Fleed, your "Daily Show" Jon Stewart joke is one of the lamest, cheesiest jokes I've ever seen on here, and bless you for making it. With all the intense debating that goes on here, I think we need that kind of shamelessly cornball goofy humour to lighten the mood sometimes. 

Am I the only one that thinks a JLA film is a stupid idea? 

Admittedly, I was never really a fan of the Avengers (both W and E), JLA, JSA or any of these supergroup team up comics. (OK, I did like Legion of Super Heroes for a couple years). They always seemed to be just a way the comic companies tried to 'cash in' on their properties.

The characters of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, et al never seemed like they would be characters that would want to or have any patience for 'teaming up'. 

Now before anyone saws "well, the Avengers worked" ...The Avengers worked because there was a pre-existing (mostly successful) movie foundation already built up  to springboard off of.

Anyway....IMO, all this talk of a JLA film is premature as it will be really dependent on how well that Z Snyder Superman film does....if it tanks, DC is going to have to seriously reevaluate what properties they want to try and turn into movies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headless Fett 

You'd think so from hanging around with Kevin Smith and all....

If Affleck's involved, so will Smith be. He'll probably be given second unit A.D. work and do a sizable chunk of the writing.  To be clear, this isn't my hope but a promise.

Seriously though, I would expect him to be involved, probably uncredited.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anyawatchin Angel 
If they want to get this right they need a guy who understands comics like Whedon.

I guess all of Ben A's Askewniverse characters are A LIE!!!

Also, just cause...

What both interested me, and sorta bummed me out, was that the only way you could do a superhero team-up film is if all entities involved were a part of either the government or a shadow-y watchdog organization like SHIELD. If the Justice League does that with a Maxwell Lord character, it will just seem like a copycat. And if they go with a SuperFriends set-up, where the heroes teamed up on their own to battle what they determined are "threats," then the whole thing has an Orwellian vibe that wouldn't stand up to intellectual scrutiny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

What both interested me, and sorta bummed me out, was that the only way you could do a superhero team-up film is if all entities involved were a part of either the government or a shadow-y watchdog organization like SHIELD. If the Justice League does that with a Maxwell Lord character, it will just seem like a copycat. And if they go with a SuperFriends set-up, where the heroes teamed up on their own to battle what they determined are "threats," then the whole thing has an Orwellian vibe that wouldn't stand up to intellectual scrutiny.

I think you're right to an extent, but something as simple as "Batman recruits a team to fight the mighty X" is enough to get the ball rolling, and if the movie is a success the ramifications of an independent super-team is something they could address in sequels along the lines of Justice League Unlimited. Of course that assumes this going to be a Justice League origin movie...

My biggest concern for a JLA movie isn't for it to stand up to intellectual scrutiny (how intellectual is THE AVENGERS, after all?). My concern is for it to not suck.

If Affleck wants to do it, fine. I just want his two film version of THE STAND first.

Also, I know a lot of you are tired of grim Batman, but I love the idea of Affleck as a supremely pissed and arrogant Batman. 

I may be very wrong, but if he actually did this, I feel like he would be smart enough to keep his role at a minimum and not suit-up.  I would guess he would realize that the concept is bigger than his ego. Plus he didn't succeed the first time he jumped into a costume.  He seems to be getting wiser, but perhaps I am giving him too much credit.  Maybe he would see this as a perfect opportunity to really put himself front and center.  "Oh you guys didn't like Daredevil? Well lemme show you that I CAN be a superhero."

I think if Affleck is in this, he's much more likely to be someone like Maxwell Lord than Batman.

I can get behind this, but ONLY if the antagonists are Mr Nebula and his herald, the Scarlet Skier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

What both interested me, and sorta bummed me out, was that the only way you could do a superhero team-up film is if all entities involved were a part of either the government or a shadow-y watchdog organization like SHIELD. If the Justice League does that with a Maxwell Lord character, it will just seem like a copycat. And if they go with a SuperFriends set-up, where the heroes teamed up on their own to battle what they determined are "threats," then the whole thing has an Orwellian vibe that wouldn't stand up to intellectual scrutiny.

Wait, so if they work for the government then it wouldn't be Orwellian? Not sure I understand your logic here. A bunch of superpowered folk (and a violent über-gimp) work independently, they get together when a vast, seemingly untenable threat presents itself. Has there never been in the whole of history, let's say, an *alliance* (hint, fucking hint, hint) that's had the same idea? Must it immediately be fascist? Alan Moore what have you done? Superheroes can mean a lot of things, but in the positive column, having the will and desire to do right when you absolutely have the power to do wrong (and knowing the difference between the two), is a very positive message and aspect of the appeal of the concept of the superhero. Instantly grafting on the fear of the birth of an repressive regime, bypassing the metaphorical aspect of the idea, is so lame (such as the response from reactionary, non-thinking Leftists to TDKR, as equally guilty as the Right-Wingers who think Nolan's Batman hates poor people as much as they do).   

Deadline is reporting that Affleck will likely pass.

I have a feeling this thing is going to remain a hot potato for a while. No one wants the challenge of having to live up to THE AVENGERS. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

Then don't watch it. From what you've said in the past you're not a comic book guy anyway

I'm not as into comic books as I used to be, but I have no problem with comic book films (other than the gluttony of the genre lately)...and if we get another ultra realistic take on Batman again, I will probably watch it out of curiosity just to see how far they've taken it.  If it's too far for me, I'll probably sit out the sequels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford . I think half the problem in Green Lantern was saddling him with a weal character portrayed by a lousy leading man.

Yes. The problem with this particular Martin Campbell movie was its decades-old iconic main character and the ultra-charismatic handsome guy playing the role.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

I'm not as into comic books as I used to be, but I have no problem with comic book films (other than the gluttony of the genre lately)...and if we get another ultra realistic take on Batman again, I will probably watch it out of curiosity just to see how far they've taken it.  If it's too far for me, I'll probably sit out the sequels.

We won't get an ultra-realistic take on Batman the next go around, we didn't get one this last go around either. All of Nolan's Batman films are slightly heightened Bond films wrapped in comic book iconography. Per the WB's plan, the next time we see Batman, he's going to live in a world where it's okay if he's buddies with a flying alien who shoots napalm out of his anal glands or whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Deadline is reporting that Affleck will likely pass.

 

I have a feeling this thing is going to remain a hot potato for a while. No one wants the challenge of having to live up to THE AVENGERS. 

Seeing as how he passed on Man of Steel as well, I suspect that what Affleck is doing is actively avoiding genre (or at least a certain kind of genre film). He has a relationship with the WB, so he'll read a script they pass to him and take these meetings, but probably more out of professional courtesy than anything else. If that's correct, then I totally respect him for that.

When I say ultra realistic, I'm talking about the mis-en scene for the most part, and the contrast to more traditional comic book films...the naturalistic photography, blocking and staging, the Chicago stand in for Gotham (rather than a totally production designed facade), the humanistic (rather than straight forward heroic) score, the gritty, multi layered approach to the script, etc...Nolan played the film through a realistic lens to me.  That's all I'm saying, and I feel like it's hair splitting at this point.

A few months ago there was a bit about the WB wanting to stick with something resembling the Nolan-established aesthetic, if for nothing more than to distinguish itself from Marvel's candy-colored films, and that makes sense to me. That all of this crazy and impossible shit looks like it could be going on right outside your window has proven itself to be a valid and successful approach. Taking into consideration the look and tone of the teaser for Man of Steel, which, rumor has it, is allegedly being set up as a subtle DCU vanguard film, I'm thinking this is going to happen.  

It's a valid approach, sure, depending on how it's used.  There is no blanket approach that works, it depends entirely on the director and the script and actors.  Any style can theoretically work, really.  That's why I said I would at least check out a first Batman made by Affleck or someone similarly grounded into "realism"...I don't have a problem with that realism, per se.  And maybe I misspoke before when I said I don't want another round...I don't know what the round would consist of honestly, so there's no reason to write it off as I've done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Deadline is reporting that Affleck will likely pass.

 

I have a feeling this thing is going to remain a hot potato for a while. No one wants the challenge of having to live up to THE AVENGERS. 

I'm not doing anything too important. I'd be up for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anyawatchin Angel 

I think this may be too big for Affleck.  Stick to the medium sized moves.

 

If they want to get this right they need a guy who understands comics like Whedon.

Sounds like when Nolan was announced for the new Batman.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

What both interested me, and sorta bummed me out, was that the only way you could do a superhero team-up film is if all entities involved were a part of either the government or a shadow-y watchdog organization like SHIELD. 

X-Men, Fantastic Four. You sure about that, chief?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

 

Wait, so if they work for the government then it wouldn't be Orwellian? Not sure I understand your logic here. A bunch of superpowered folk (and a violent über-gimp) work independently, they get together when a vast, seemingly untenable threat presents itself. Has there never been in the whole of history, let's say, an *alliance* (hint, fucking hint, hint) that's had the same idea? Must it immediately be fascist? Alan Moore what have you done? Superheroes can mean a lot of things, but in the positive column, having the will and desire to do right when you absolutely have the power to do wrong (and knowing the difference between the two), is a very positive message and aspect of the appeal of the concept of the superhero. Instantly grafting on the fear of the birth of an repressive regime, bypassing the metaphorical aspect of the idea, is so lame (such as the response from reactionary, non-thinking Leftists to TDKR, as equally guilty as the Right-Wingers who think Nolan's Batman hates poor people as much as they do).   

I agree with you mostly.

But this is going to be about high flying superheroes and supervillains, solving problems by a little ingenuity and a lot of punching.

It's a very tricky balancing ac, which gives you three scenarios:

1) Set this in Nolan's "real world." Address a world where people put on costumes and poison the well by upping the ante for future supervillains. Muddy the waters politically, and allow our heroes to stand for something, compromise, then try to emerge from the rubble.

2) Go fantastical (my favorite!) and try to take a candy-colored approach that makes it seem as if this world's supervillains are legitimately a black and white threat. Make our heroes idealistic, and present a world where the choice between good and bad is deceptively simple, creating a compelling binary situation opposite to the gray areas of Batman's questionably legal tactics.

3) Actually set it in the real world, where these heroes struggle and fail to maintain the world's status quo. Make them responsible for their actions, create supervillains that aren't villains as much as people desperate to retain their way of life. Upset people, then intrigue them, and make one of the more complex and satisfying superhero films yet. This is the least likely option.

Let's face it, being Batman, or Spider-Man, or whomever is a MUCH easier decision to make when there are superpowered villains running around. Doing the right thing has never been a difficult decision in any superhero film just yet, no matter how many narrative backflips that are done to convince us our hero is under-equipped and/or a douchebag (Green Lantern?).

Quote:

Originally Posted by roboTimKelly 

X-Men, Fantastic Four. You sure about that, chief?

X-Men were a SCHOOL. I don't think they had much of a choice there.

Fantastic Four were a family, more or less.

They couldn't take either of those approaches for the Justice League. Maybe the first, if you started it in Justice League Academy, with a ten year old Martian Manhunter. That shit would be ADORABLE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

They couldn't take either of those approaches for the Justice League. 

It's just trivial to me to lob out such criticisms before the script has even been finalized. You have no idea what approach they're taking. And saying that they need government or shadow group backing is, in all honesty, kinda dumb. Let's just remake Avengers, then. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Deadline is reporting that Affleck will likely pass.

 

I have a feeling this thing is going to remain a hot potato for a while. No one wants the challenge of having to live up to THE AVENGERS. 

Also, no one wants to be responsible for murdering 4+ franchises for a major studio if this film doesn't pay off.  Whoever takes on this mantle will effectively be building the DC Filmverse from the ground up and that's a hefty responsibility.  They will also be micromanaged like crazy on the casting and might not have a ton of creative input on the whole.  This will also be saddled with the majority of the blame if it doesn't pay off.  Instant Director Jail.

It's like being handed a live grenade and not knowing whether it will explode and kill you...or shoot out confetti.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Deadline is reporting that Affleck will likely pass.

That whole piece was nothing more than Fleming being a cunt because Variety got it first. Nothing about it conflicted with the initial report despite his ramblings. "Oh I knew about that for, like, ever but I didn't wanna report it!" Boo-fucking-hoo. Put a tampon to stop the bleeding and shut the fuck up, you bitter bitch!

Quote:

Originally Posted by roboTimKelly 

It's just trivial to me to lob out such criticisms before the script has even been finalized. You have no idea what approach they're taking. And saying that they need government or shadow group backing is, in all honesty, kinda dumb. Let's just remake Avengers, then. 

I'm saying that it's the most obvious and predictable approach (which is why Avengers used it), and I feel that creatively there needs to be some heavy lifting to utilize any other avenue. And most other options come with their own questionable baggage.

I dunno, I am pretty skeptical, since Marvel's heroes tend to be more rogue outlaws and renegades who reluctantly pair up. The Justice League, those guys aren't really like that. How would this work? What would be the set-up?

I thought AVENGERS used it because, you know, it's in the source material. Maybe you could accuse that of being obvious and predictable, but I don't think that's a fair criticism of the film version.

There's no way that Affleck will say "yes" to this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

There's no way that Affleck will say "yes" to this.

He already said No.  

I'm not quite following GabeT's skepticism here.  Yes, the Justice League have to either work for the government, or...not work for the government.  Every superhero movie addresses, or just breezes past, that relationship in some way, why is it insurmountable for this one in particular?

Because this is a RIDICULOUSLY superpowered team. What threats will they combat? What will they CHOOSE to combat? With the case of the Avengers, the issue never comes up because it's members are unstable and, in some ways, kind of selfish. What's the Justice League's response to, why don't you stop a war? Why don't you save these people, or those people?

It'll be a repeat of that phenomenal scene in Superman Returns where he rises above the earth and listens to the pain and suffering of everyone, trying to decide how to help people. And... he zones in on a bank robbery.

The best Justice League comics represent them as Gods. They don't deal with hunger, war, poverty etc. (It's established in the first issue of JLA), because of the profound effects they would have. They deal with alien invasions, parallel universes, etc. I don't know how making them "realistic" would affect this though.

You hit the nail on the head on the Avengers though. They aren't really a team because their members never have a stable roster. It changes every fifteen issues. Avengers is more of a club.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMcLargeHuge 

The best Justice League comics represent them as Gods. They don't deal with hunger, war, poverty etc. (It's established in the first issue of JLA), because of the profound effects they would have.

Yeah, that's the approach I would prefer.

And engaging in this attitude would mean you need a filmmaking team who can make fantastical, abstract villains a serious threat, and still not make this a shitty episode of SuperFriends. I'd say this is gonna need an imagination far greater than someone like Jon Favreau of even Chris Nolan, someone who thinks BIG and BIZARRE. Animation is probably the best place to look for the proper director, not the guy who made THE TOWN.