JackFetch Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 It was a terrible idea but nobody should have that much power over the people that own the characters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koete Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 And when a director doesn't have enough power, you get Spider-Man 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 It was a terrible idea but nobody should have that much power over the people that own the characters. When the people in question are Warner Bros., I think Nolan gets a pass. I'll give Marvel Studios their due, but the worst aspect of most any of the films leading up to The Avengers was the fact that they were leading up to The Avengers. That's why Iron Man was great - it was an Iron Man movie with a throwaway post-credits scene at the end to germinate the idea. Iron Man 2 was substantially worse because it was all about setting up The Avengers. Arguably nothing the Incredible Hulk had anything to do with The Avengers and it felt very much like a standalone film as a result. Captain America was largely free of Avengers-itis whilst Coulson and Hawkeye really didn't need to be in Thor. I don't honestly see how DC properties can win trying to replicate the same formula. A) they'll be touted as ripping off Marvel Studios (which they would be), B) Warner Bros. are so controlling that it's hard to see how any standalone film can fluorish unless there is someone as gifted as Nolan behind the scenes, C) what Tom said about marrying up completely different comic concepts and meshing them together successfully, D) sooner or later, people are going to get sick of superhero movies. At best, I think the only way you can do a JLA movie is through the Zemeckis-style motion capture film. It's not fashionable at the moment, and still relies on massive exposition of bringing 6 or 7 established DC heroes all together, but I think it'd be preferable to a live action rush-job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Warner Brothers should have the right to screw up their own properties, and Nolan shouldn't get a pass because he made one successful movie at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 When it's the first definitivly successful major DC hero property since Burton's Batman, I think Nolan gets a pass. These successes are rare for DC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Warner Brothers should have the right to screw up their own properties, and Nolan shouldn't get a pass because he made one successful movie at the time. You must really not like that Nolan was then given power over Superman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 Warner Brothers should have the right to screw up their own properties, and Nolan shouldn't get a pass because he made one successful movie at the time. Two successful movies, you mean. If a movie pulls in the bucks that The Dark Knight pulls in, I don't see what leg you have to stand on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 It was a terrible idea but nobody should have that much power over the people that own the characters. When the people in question are Warner Bros., I think Nolan gets a pass. To back up my point: Warner Bros wanted DiCaprio to play the Riddler in this movie http://www.slashfilm...k-knight-rises/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 I'm going to disagree with you a little there, Ian. Sure, Riddler wouldn't have been the epic, insurmountable challenge that Bane seems to represent, but he could certainly work in the film. Throw in a very capable guy like DiCaprio, and the movie could have worked very nicely. I'm not at all bummed, that we got Bane instead, but there is nothing wrong with the studio's idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Point is, not every studio idea is awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc20willsave Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Another point: instead of Mako, Arnold was supposed to be the narrator of Conan the Barbarian. Imagine two hours of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koete Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 According to Variety, Warner Bros. has approached Ben Affleck about directing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 Before DKR they showed a trailer for Argo and it was great just because it was one of the first times I was genuinely excited to see Ben Affleck's involvement. He's a really good director. Then again, directing drama and doing an action superhero film are two different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 On one hand, Affleck ha sa pretty spotless record of amazing movies, so he' be great. He could also play any multitude of characters in the film. On the other hand, I would prefer him to make smart movies and leave the big budget superhero bullshit to the Whedons, Snyders and Bays of the world. If he continues to do what he does, he'll be remembered as a very high quality filmmaker for a long time as opposed to the others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 After thinking it over, I agree Des. If Affleck stays on his current path he could be on the level of a Clint Eastwood as a director. A JLA film wouldn't be in his long-term best interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxPower Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 If Affleck stays on his current path he could be on the level of a Clint Eastwood as a director. Just wanted to creatively re-quote this one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 You fuckers leave Clint out of this, or you'll all be ...Unforgiven! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James D. Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 You fuckers leave Clint out of this, or you'll all be ...Unforgiven! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 So... you're saying you don't want Affleck on the movie because he's too good for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc20willsave Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 No, they're saying that Affleck's skills tend to lie with smaller films. Take The Town for instance. It's a greatly directed film. The action sequences tend to be the only part where the film feels a little labored. Imagine an entire film that feels labored. Not so fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 I don't mind Affleck, and I think there are a few JLA members that Casey could play very well, but something about this seems off to me. I think he's just an odd fit. He could do very well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 He turned it down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 I can't read any of these other posts without thinking about that "Avengers envy" comment some time back. Unless they can at least reach the scope and quality of that film, a JLA movie runs a great risk of being a mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 The Avengers worked because Marvel/Disney laid things out over a five-year period, built things up to a point where the properties were strong on their own merits and then came together in a manner that made sense. Warner Brothers is saying "AVENGERS MADE A BILLION DOLLARS WE WANT THAT QUICK MAKE A JLA ONE" and going about things entirely the wrong way. I cannot see this working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 No one in their right mind is going to want this job. Not only do you have to battle the inevitable comparisons to The Avengers you have the added burden of having to reboot Batman following Nolan's version. It is an impossible job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.