Well, it's not played out in real life, that's where our fucking villains keep coming from. Pretty steadily. Life doesn't care if you're bored with it. Sure ain't no dirt farmers committing the super-crimes. None of the terrorists have been poor. The 9/11 guys were bankrolled, and educated. The "too big to fail", muthafuckas were mega-rich. Halliburton, BP, Enron, Monstanto, all rich enough to buy their way out of anything. Shit, look at Chick-fil-et. Just a skeezy little third-rate sandwich chain, and it's big enough to pull "we're bigots, and what are you gonna do about it? Hah? Myeeaah! Myah, see!? ".
Dude that's easy. You don't need to establish anything for them to be in conflict. Just look at their individual personalities. There's natural conflict there between the two. People are spoiled on Justice League where everyone is friends. All you need is for goody two-shoes Superman to step into Batman's turf and stop Batman from kicking someone's ass and that will be good enough. Hell since Batman is widely considered a vigilante maybe the government asks Superman to grab him and when Superman shows up and tells Batman he's there to take him in Batman with his fancy gadgets knocks the shit out of Superman and says, "Tell me something I don't already know." [wyt=Difference between Superman and Batman]ia7KLwMONzc[/wyt]
I'm fine with Live Action Batman 6.0 (West/Keaton/Kilmer/Clooney/Bale...am I missing someone) not having his own movie first. The potential reason(s) for animosity between the two are still there. An adaptation of the one in TDKR (Supes has become a suck-up to a government that is at best questionable, while Batman is a true outlaw) can certainly be brought to bear. Similarly, Superman=optimistic Boy Scout, Batman=pessimistic morally grey is another potential source of conflict. You could literally take any of the dozens of stories in comics or cartoons where the two have been in conflict since TDKR and include it in this movie, or invent new ones. Of course, you could avoid them having an actual fight in the first place, and just have them have tension. I think there's enough familiarity with Batman as a character that one doesn't need an entire film to establish his motivation,which will be known to just about everyone who comes to see this movie. (bad guys killed my parents, so now I'm going to do everything I can to stop bad guys by scaring them, dressing up as a bat, mastering every discipline of human knowledge and combat, and using my billions to come up with the sweetest gizmos.) Man of Steel established that you can rob Superman of his powers by simulating Krypton's environment. Batman could learn this (say, by Lois writing about it, or by questioning Lois) and create a duplicate of such environment because he's Batman. (See: Red Son)
I don't think they'll make this film anywhere near as cynical as TDKR. And, besides, the "Superman-as-government-tool" would be hard to play while keeping Superman the protagonist. If Superman is acting on behalf of the government, I imagine either (1) the government itself is being deceived or (2) there's one rogue element in the government who makes it happen. I think the plot, in broad strokes, writes itself: Superman and Batman will be brought into conflict with one another and will resolve that conflict in time to combat a greater threat. Since Batman is mainly confined to Gotham City, it seems likely Superman will come to him. The logical reason Superman would go to Gotham to battle Batman is that Superman believes Batman is a danger to others somehow. That makes it all but inevitable Batman is framed/mistakenly accused of something rather extreme. (How about a villain who poses as Batman to commit some dastardly crime?) I'd love to see Bruce and Clark circle each other a little bit before the battle is truly joined. Perhaps each discovers who the other is, but neither is aware of the other's discovery. I'd also LOVE to see Bruce coming on to Lois Lane, similar to the plotline in the animated series a decade or so back.
^^^ Some good stuff there. Would be interesting to see which villain would have the motivation and ability to do that. Presumably the main objective would be to get rid of Batman since it wouldn't be rational for them to presume that Bats would take out Superman...or else discredit "superheroes" in general. alternately, maybe the whole idea is simply to distract both of them while some other plot unfolds.
I don't expect a summer movie to be very political, but they could certainly play with the idea done in comics that Superman is very establishment, very Kansas farmboy, very much in the limelight with his exploits being written about constantly by Lois and Clark on the one hand, and Batman is a shadowy figure who is widely believed to be an urban legend and who has only one or two allies within government like Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent. Of course, as of Man of Steel, the latest version of Superman isn't welcomed with open arms by the U.S. government either.
How about that since they're so similar, at first, Bruce Wayne and LUTHOR are friends, and that's what puts Batman in opposition with Superman? Or, how about even that Supes thinks Luthor is Bats?
I was thinking that in the wake of MoS, the government is looking for private companies to look into this alien in their midst and the leftover alien tech, and both Lexcorp and Wayne Industries are the final competitors. Lexcorp gets the contract through underhanded means, and Batman's investigating both them and Superman simultaneously. In the process of futzing around with things that he doesn't fully understand, Lex creates or unleashes another super-level menace (take your pick of Bizarro, Cyborg Superman, the Eradicator, Brainiac etc.).
Heck, you could even do a homage to the Bale Batman - the Batman is wanted at large for the death of a noted district attorney. Its going to be a Supes POV though - I think if we see Clark investigating someone (and they need to explore that aspect of the mythology which was just beginning at the end of MoS) then it makes sense for his investigation of the Batman - especially as we are introducing a new Batman. I think you leave enough of the Batman stuff alone that if you want to pretend its Bale's Batman you can. But you focus on the current issues. And finding out that the reason Lois and Clark have been getting leads on investigating Batman is because Lex Luthor is uncomfortable about the Batman sitings at LexCorp could bring all sorts of things to the fore, such as Raoul's suggestion. Either way, I think this is a good step toward the JLA movie and a smart move. They are also setting up for a Flash TV series, he's appearing in this season's Arrow (Barry Allen version). Sounds like we could have a Flash/Green Arrow/Batman/Superman teamup by 2017 with all of them having well developed back stories. Black Canary is making her debut this season as well. Seems like they are going to take the Arrow TV continuity as a possible step towards the broader mythology.
that's kind of odd news since to this point Arrow has devoted itself to the "no metahumans" concept as much as Nolan did.
Yeah, but that's the official word from the CW. Geoff Johns will be scripting, David Nutter directing - Nutter who did the pilots for Smallville and Arrow and recently did the Rains of Castamere episode of Game of Thrones. Barry Allen will be in the 8th, 9th, and 20th episodes - with the 20th being the spin off to his own series. He'll be easy to add to Starling City as a forensic scientist, and they've been using the names of the comic cities, so he'll likely be from Central City. And the expressly said he'll be the one that introduces powers to the Arrow universe: and even further: Plus I think they've been dancing around that for a while. I've only seen a few of the shows so far (going to go back and watch them, they are pretty good), but the Slade Wilson character seem enhanced from the getgo, more than just a badass Merc, though it was never expressly mentioned. And the Count Vertigo ep sure left the possibility of the Count developing superpowers -that was the first thing I thought of after the massive dose of the Vertigo drug that he got. He's one of Green Arrow's biggest recurring villains. Then there's the fact they will be changing the character's name - he's going to drop 'the Hood' and start using Green Arrow this season according to teasers from the show. http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/31/the-flash-will-introduce-powers-to-the-arrow-universe
Does this mean that a couple of CW stars will be getting the bump and costarring alongside the Man Of Steel on the big screen?
I consider the odds of characters from the "Arrow" television show being integrated into the DC movie universe to be very, very, very remote. Far less likely, even, than Tom Welling ever being cast in a Superman feature film, which, despite the yearnings of a few die-hard "Smallville" fans, was never going to happen. I have to wonder what strategy--if any--DC is following at this point. Although teaming up Supes and Bats is a great idea--why bother with the whole Justice League when these two are really what we want to see?--they're going to have to introduce some of their higher profile characters to the big screen eventually. Does it make sense to put the Flash in a film if he's running around (pardon the pun) on his own TV show at the same time? It's apt to confuse things. Assuming Man of Steel 2 works, we'll get Batman re-launched. But DC's got to get back to work on Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, and, yes, the Flash. Marvel will have Ant-Man--fucking Ant-Man!--on the big screen before DC can get most of their headliners up there.
I think that the reasons why Tom Welling was never going to be a big-screen Superman have to do with a) "Smallville" clearly being its own entity and b) Tom Welling's limited acting ability. I like to think of him as the Man of Blue Steel. Now that DC has seen how Marvel has started to rebuild its movie verse from the ground up, it seems like it would be smart to cast someone as Flash that they could see co-starring on the big screen as well as carrying a TV series. I would say that we don't just want to see Superman and Bats...fans want to see most if not all the traditional big heroes. And even casual fans would probably love to see something on the scope of "The Avengers." Part of it is also these companies should be creating the desire to see characters. Who would have thought that Iron Man movies would literally be a billion dollar industry unto themselves prior to RDJ strapping on the suit. Say what you will about DC -- they have numerous characters that have at least as much potential as Iron Man. Heck, Steel well-done with an actual actor instead of Shaq is basically Iron Man. Hence, casting a TV Flash capable of also being a movie Flash.
That's kinda what I was getting at: if television shows and movie share continuity, things get ugly; and television actors are rarely suited to being big-screen movie stars. Doubtful, simply because there are different decision-makers in each of the projects. The guy who makes the Justice League movie may not WANT the person the guy who made the TV show picked as Flash. The film script may incorporate story elements that are IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile with any established continuity. And I doubt very seriously that DC is going to get a big-time director (someone who can manage a $200+ million dollar film) to agree to tailoring a script to a TV character, even a well-established one. I could be wrong, but I just don't see that happening. Can you imagine if, when they hired Zack Snyder to do Man of Steel, they said, oh, by the way, you've got to make sure you don't violate anything in the Smallville canon? No-freakin'-way. You hire someone to make a film about the Flash, you're going to get THEIR vision of the Flash, not a big-screen episode of a TV show. I put that badly. What I meant was not that a JLA movie is undesirable, simply that the biggest attractions in such a movie are Superman and Batman. Losing the rest of the JLA means devoting more screen time to each of them. And, I think, ultimately, fans will be just as happy with that. I imagine ANY character could be good movie material, but there's no point in working on the Red Tornado or Black Canary films until you've got Batman, Wonder Woman, Superman, Green Lantern, and the Flash established. Oh, and the problem with Steel is that his roots are bound up with a particular Superman story arc. Yes, you can detach him from that--the Shaq film did--but, if you do, you've got to make it up with something more compelling. Removing the character from their original context often diminishes part of what makes the character interesting. See Catwoman for an example. Without her relationship to Batman, the character just isn't as interesting and, to the extent she's changed, she's not "really" Catwoman any more. Requires a level of coordination and an acquiescence of the filmmakers that I think quite unreasonable.
Geez, I wish I didn't feel this way, but don't you get the sense that DC/WB is already screwing the pooch like they did in the fucking 90's?
DC almost seems like where Marvel was back in the early 2000s. Remember? We had films like Blade, that first X-Men, Daredevil, and Hulk which were...okay (actually, a couple of those were quite good)...but it took Spider-Man to really break into fuck-yeah territory. In SAT terms, Spider-Man:2002 Marvel :: The Dark Knight:2008 DC. These films are the point that should've screamed to the owners of the characters: "Hey, dummy, put out a high-quality big budget film featuring your characters and you'll make money faster than it can be printed." And Marvel continued steadily gained momentum. It remains to be seen if DC can. Iron Man followed 6 years after Spider-Man and was moderately successful. Man of Steel followed 5 years after The Dark Knight and was moderately successful. Iron Man has since spawned some HUGE ($1 billion+ grossing) sequels; hopefully, Man of Steel will do the same. So, even if they're lagging, DC isn't totally out of the game... The Dark Knight trilogy was enormously successful, the equal of anything Marvel's done so far. Man of Steel, if not quite a home run, was a very solid triple and has put the character back on the map. It's done as well as the original Iron Man. Green Lantern didn't cut it, but it wasn't a catastrophe, just kind of a wasted opportunity. They should be doing what Marvel did with the Hulk: roaring back with a quasi-reboot. DC has been active in some peripheral ways, too: they had some other films that don't really count toward their mainstream superhero line: Jonah Hex blew goats and Watchmen, though arguably the finest of the comic book adaptations to date IMHO, is a different continuity. So, they're not asleep...they're just not very focused. I worry that the superhero phenomenon may not last. If DC wants to get their characters up there, time's a wastin'...
Pretty much, yeah. There has yet to be a big-screen DC movie that I get seriously excited about. Thing is, this is Warner Brothers we're talking about. They're already a media conglomerate. It should not be that hard for them to pull together a coherent DC universe spanning television and movies. But there's things you could do. For instance, instead of Flash being an ongoing TV series, I'd do it as a miniseries so that it could tie right in to a big theatrical movie, which could then tie into a JLA movie, which could then be backstory for another miniseries, and so on. To my mind, if you want to do a proper JLA movie the roster is Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Hawkman, Aquaman, and Martian Manhunter. Which is a lot of characters to shoehorn into one movie. So you introduce the non-Big Three in TV miniseries so that by the time the movie hits the screens, the casual fans already know who they are and what their backstory is. For that matter, as great as The Avengers was, I would have used a bit different set of characters: Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Ant-Man and the Wasp, Captain America, Hawkeye, Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch. That gives you the original Avengers from the comics plus the so-called "Cap's Kooky Quartet" roster that followed.
Too many characters for one film. The Avengers did six (or 7-9, depending on whether you count the SHIELD types), and only Cap and Iron Man got real screen time. Also, no, uh, diversity. Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, and Cyborg. Green Lantern AND Green Arrow? A little confusing to audiences that don't follow the comics. Besides, Green Arrow doesn't bring anything the others don't have covered. (As GL joked in a recent storyline where GA tried to join the Justice League: "We already have a guy [Batman] who can't do anything.") Hawkman? What does he add that justifies taking screen time away from the more interesting characters? Aquaman? Maybe if your story is set in the ocean, otherwise...he's no one's favorite superhero. Martin Manhunter? We already got a super-powered alien, fer cryin' out loud. Yeah, I want to see everyone on the big screen, too. But sometimes less is more.
You can't copy what they did with the Avengers, because the DC main cast isn't an ensemble. Even when they're sharing the spotlight, they're really two spotlights staring a stage. Marvel's characters and storylines are all much better suited to a true ensemble. Avengers assemble, while the Justice League just hands out prizes for being the best heroes around. And perhaps someone has actually figured that out and suggested a Superman vs Batman film because of it, and more power to them. But if DC wants to have any real chance to stand up to Marvel, they need to figure out how a DC movie franchise is different from a Marvel franchise, and do that.
You are forgetting that Marvel has done very few of the pictures you listed. Marvel is making Avengers, Iron Man, Thor, Cap, and Hulk. Fox has the X-Men, the Wolverine movies, Fantastic Four, Daredevil, and Electra. Sony has Spider-Man and Ghost Rider. New Line did the Blade series, though that's defunct. So you have a lot of guys putting out Marvel products, not just Marvel Studios. As far as TV and Movies, why not? They are doing that with Agent Coulsen and Shield. Guys like Green Arrow would make minor characters for backfill in a larger Justice League movie, but it would draw fans both ways. And you could do the more human fallout of the larger movies in a detailed way in the series, leaving the movies for the true epic stories. Hell, you could even contract in occassional guest appearances - if we pay you $30 million to be Supes, you can show up once a year in sweep week.
You are, of course, correct. The films are a product of different studios. But it's still all Marvel. Even if it's not as a result of a singular plan, Marvel (the maker of comic books) is still getting its characters to the screen more successfully. Remains to be seen if that works and, in any event, it's easier to adapt one element of a film to a TV series than to constrain a feature film to the established continuity of a TV show. And are they going to bring Coulsen back in Avengers 2 or what? A number of very big challenges would have to be overcome to make that work. If DC can't pull off getting their characters to film, I have little faith they'll be able to cross-connect films and TV shows.
I think you aren't giving DC enough credit. You are comparing them against 5 major studios. They've done OK, considering - the Batman movies are up there, several successful Superman movies, and Watchmen, all of these are very successful super hero movies. Then they've got Constantine, the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and Stardust. Not big hits, but successful movies. But they also have some really successful Comics that weren't Superhero or Fantasy based. How about Road to Perdition? A History of Violence? The RED series currently out. How about V for Vendetta? Not all WB, of course, but then not all the Marvel movies are Marvel. So I'd like to see them do better at getting the other superheroes launched, for sure (and I'm that geek that would LOVE a Aquaman movie, if done right), but overall they've put out some pretty good stuff.
Okay, any thoughts to the problem of coming up with an original plot/villain for a Justice League movie? By the time they get around to it, Marvel may be making Avengers 3, what world spanning, all encompassing problems can they come up with? Can DC do an alien invasion movie without remaking The Avengers? Omniscient AI in the next one? Well that pulls the rug out from under Braniac. Do us follow me? DC has their work cut out for them if th don't wanna be a low rent Avengers.
I've heard pretty consistently that it's going to be Darkseid. http://screenrant.com/justice-league-movie-story-darkseid-apokolips/
