|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Oct 6, 2010 15:50:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Oct 6, 2010 15:55:22 GMT -5
He's got a good look (though a bit young), he's an unknown, and 6'5. Not bad. Routh has a better look though.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2010 16:19:25 GMT -5
I had similar thoughts when I read this story the other day, Jimbo. Besides coming a family name with some history behind it I thought he was all wrong for Batman years ago. To young, to inexperienced, etc. Glad that didn't happen.
I really don't know how he has developed as an actor but I think he's the right age for a younger Superman which I assume the reboot movie will be going for and he's got a decent look and size to him. As far as height he's more than qualified.
Anybody seen him in The Social Network? Whats his acting like for that?
Its a shame that we'll never see a Worlds Finest or JLA movie with Superman and Batman if Nolan has his way. I'd like to see that before I'm 90 and more concerned with seeing my bedpan.
You'd tink with making one man responsible for both characters that would UP the chances of seeing a crossover one day but apparently not in this case.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Oct 6, 2010 16:44:52 GMT -5
He's getting rave reviews for his performance in TSN.
He has a decent look, but he looks very young. He has a very deep voice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Oct 6, 2010 16:46:18 GMT -5
Its a shame that we'll never see a Worlds Finest or JLA movie with Superman and Batman if Nolan has his way. I'd like to see that before I'm 90 and more concerned with seeing my bedpan. You'd tink with making one man responsible for both characters that would UP the chances of seeing a crossover one day but apparently not in this case. JLA is fine in theory. It just cannot exist while Batman and Superman movies are going on, PERIOD. It's better to do when the Batman and Superman standalone series have ended. For me, it sounds unappealing to have a character in his own movie, and then have him as a minor character in an ensemble piece. You see the opposite happen all the time (Wolverine, Elektra, any other spinoff), but I can't see this happening. If it were still Routh, I'd feel cheated seeing his Superman relegated to a bit role. Let's say we get a new Superman reboot, and then a JLA movie, and then a sequel to the Superman movie. It just feels wrong going back and forth like that. Not to mention all the legal stuff that has to be done to lock actors into roles for multiple movies, not always with the same billing. It just opens the door for disputes and recasting. No thanks. DC would be smart to not hamstring their movies by trying to link everything together like Marvel is doing right now. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2010 17:11:37 GMT -5
JLA is fine in theory. It just cannot exist while Batman and Superman movies are going on, PERIOD. It's better to do when the Batman and Superman standalone series have ended. I don't necessarily disagree with that but I think either way could be done. I DO think a few solo movies should be done first instead of doing JLA to introduce the audience to the characters. Have the JLA film be the last part of a overarching story thats built in the background but doesn't really negatively affect the primary story of the trilogy. Trilogy ends and wraps up THAT story then it shifts to JLA. Maybe ONE JLA film. then do more Superman films. I don't really see that as a lot of going back and forth. just going back and forth once or like you said having JLA be the end. The problem is Superman and Batman solo movies done well may not ever SEE an ending so there would never really be a window for a JLA movie. Even if the studio decided to end one version they may jump directly into the reboot. I have no problem waiting ten years for the right time to do a JLA movie but with Nolans thinking it'll NEVER be done and it CAN'T be done as long as he has a say and I just feel thats shortsighted. Kinda like his idea that Robins not possible to realize in the Batman movies. The character would have to be altered but if someone is talented enough both can be done. Superman is usually not a bit role in the stories. He is the teams leader after all. It really depends on having the right story and properly regulating the time the characters are on screen. A JLA movie done properly would have Batman and Superman front and center since they are the biggest draws but the other characters shouldn't be shortchanged. A JLA movie should come after two or three movies in the Superman series and maybe it should be only one movie at that. Marvels problem is that they didn't plan important details out at all. Making movies with unfinished scripts and not having a overall game plan. The idea of solo movies leading to avengers is fine but its the WAY they did it thats been the problem. Making sure Iron Man 2 was just right took a backseat to getting it out on time and having the right references in there to lead into Avengers. IM2 suffered for their ultimate, not very well thought out goal. If they'd taken the proper time to get their bases covered from the very beginning it wouldn't have happened. Their a comic book company trying to be a movie studio for one thing. with TW owning DC comics its not really the same situation. Everything they could want to use is more accessible than Marvel's characters are to them AND they have the proper resources. WB isn't goign to be AS concerned with being to cheap to pay people as Marvel is |
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Oct 6, 2010 17:22:54 GMT -5
How many characters would a JLA movie have or need? It's a group of the main DC heroes, but does that mean it would also have a group of the rogues gallery? Introducing and doing justice to a dozen or so major comic book characters in a 2 hour movie while still having a coherent plot sounds impossible to accomplish. It would have to set up the team coming together, not to mention showing all the villains (each with their own motivations) somehow coming together too. It's kinda like Trek '09. They spent a movie getting the crew together. Now they can go out on a new adventure in a sequel.
Iron Man 2 really just needed to focus of Tony, Rhodey, Pepper, Hammer and Ivan, but then they threw in just two more (Black Widow, Nick Fury), and it started looking like a jumble.
X-Men and X2 both maintained pretty good focus on story and character moments, but then they just threw in way too many characters in X3 (many just bit roles to appease comic fans), and the movie suffered.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2010 17:45:07 GMT -5
How many characters would a JLA movie have or need? It's a group of the main DC heroes, but does that mean it would also have a group of the rogues gallery? Introducing and doing justice to a dozen or so major comic book characters in a 2 hour movie while still having a coherent plot sounds impossible to accomplish. The original team has had five to seven so lets keep it at 5 heroes to keep the team down to a manageable number. Thats already LESS than a lot of ensemble/team movies. Less than The Avengers I believe. And considering the point of the JLA is to combat a threat none of them can handle alone who says it has to specifically be a group of bad guys? maybe ONE badguy. One superpowered being or one villain who is the head of a faceless group of soldiers/followers. That describes several JLA villains. TMNT didn't have too explain the origins and motivations of EVERY Foot Soldier. Star Wars didn't have to explain who EVERY Storm Trooper was and how they came to be (and when they did later on...it kinda sucked...search your feelings  ) so thats SIX main characters that would have to be juggled in the movie. I really don't think thats an unmanageable number. Still less than Avengers or Star Trek 09. Star Wars had about that many main characters didn't it? or even more? Trek 09 had to explain the new universe and how things had changed and how the characters had changed as well as showing them come together. A proper JLA movie would have the solo movies to introduce MOST of the info about the characters with some quick info explaining to anyone who didn't see the movie or to help people remember. Dark knight really didn't explain much at ALL about Joker and most people really didn't' care. it all depends on the presentation and the characters. A lot of background info on certain things could even be covered in a credits sequence. Anything from the individuals origins or the formation of the team itself if need be. People have been saying for years that they'd rather have Supermans origin covered that way at this point. They could theoretically do the same with the Leagues origin or the villains origin. It depends on how time is managed and how creative they get. The story of The Hulks origin was told perfectly in The Incredible Hulk opening credits and a lot of people think that movie was BETTER than Ang Lees movie which took 2 hours to detail the Hulks origins. Those problems went beyond the number of characters and how Marvel didn't know what they were doing and rushed the movies. theres a difference between a movie using 5 main characters and a movie tossing in appearances from 25 characters for no reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Oct 6, 2010 17:52:44 GMT -5
theres a difference between a movie using 5 main characters and a movie tossing in appearances from 25 characters for no reason. Exactly. Would you put that past DC doing the same thing in a JLA movie? |
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Oct 6, 2010 17:53:14 GMT -5
The idea of watching a movie where Superman needs to stop and think "Oh crap, I can't do this alone. I need lowly humans in silly outfits to help me too." amuses me. In the event of Kryptonite, send in the humans!
There should be a JLA movie which just has the JLA remove all Kryptonite from Earth. Then in the next movie, Superman would disband the JLA and do everything himself. ;D
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2010 18:08:07 GMT -5
theres a difference between a movie using 5 main characters and a movie tossing in appearances from 25 characters for no reason. Exactly. Would you put that past DC doing the same thing in a JLA movie? For one thing DC would have no say in the matter WB would. I doubt it would happen on that scale because X-men was a different concept than JLA. They were not individual members coming together as a team but ALWAYS a team and a family of sorts. As a school there were ALWAYS a lot of mutants running around. The idea of various mutants is a big thing in Marvel. The idea of various meta humans has never been a regularly HUGE deal in DC. They never tried to push their own "mutant" idea as hard as marvel did thus its not something fans really CLAMOR for. Both teams have had rotating rosters overt the years but you've always had a core of about 7 major characters. With X men the regular team of X men alone was often bigger than that. Fox and marvel wanted to show a lot of mutants because in the story there ARE mutants around as a race and they have a plight. superheroes and metahumans aren't normally featured in the same way in DC comics. They aren't treated as a persecuted race so theres even LESS of a reason to put them in a JLA movie. WB might be incompetent but they aren't Fox. WB has had more opportunities to do DC crossovers in movies than marvel could dream of but they haven't. Why would they start now? Smallville is as close as its come and thats been spread out over 10 years not one movie and on weekly tv at that. As far as I know DC doesn't have an equivalent of Avi Arad, who was one guy who pushed for so many X characters to appear in the movie. If there is a guy its Geoff Johns and I doubt he'd want to throw every DC hero in a JLA movie. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2010 18:16:26 GMT -5
The idea of watching a movie where Superman needs to stop and think "Oh crap, I can't do this alone. I need lowly humans in silly outfits to help me too." amuses me. In the event of Kryptonite, send in the humans! There should be a JLA movie which just has the JLA remove all Kryptonite from Earth. Then in the next movie, Superman would disband the JLA and do everything himself. ;D If Kryptonite is falling from space from time to time how could they remove it all from earth? The Manhunters an alien just like Superman and actually has some handy powers Superman DOESN'T have. Wonder Womans not really a human. Flash has superpowers and GL has a ring that could give Superman a run for his money. Aquamans an Atlantean. The only real normal human is Batman. Just cause theres no Kryptonite doesn't mean Superman could do everything himself. Doomsday kicked the entire teams ass...including Superman. No Kryptonite. Darksied could be a tough challenge for Superman alone. Despero. Even Brainiac handled properly. If they ever adapted the White Martian storyline from the comics how could Superman stop an entire race that could wipe his mind clean or make him kill every human being on the planet? Super strength can't stop that. Theres a lot of ways to go with a JLA movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Oct 6, 2010 18:30:33 GMT -5
Just cause theres no Kryptonite doesn't mean Superman could do everything himself. Comic book Superman, you're right. Movie Superman (so far)....let's see. He's can restore the San Andreas fault and prevent part of a continent from falling into the ocean (according to Lex, anyway), he is capable of time travel ( that pretty much solves any problem right there), he can move the Moon and he can launch a large landmass into space. Unless they finally gimp Superman in a movie and stop giving him ridiculous powers, he doesn't really need help. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2010 18:47:58 GMT -5
Just cause theres no Kryptonite doesn't mean Superman could do everything himself. Comic book Superman, you're right. Movie Superman (so far)....let's see. He's can restore the San Andreas fault and prevent part of a continent from falling into the ocean (according to Lex, anyway), he is capable of time travel ( that pretty much solves any problem right there), he can move the Moon and he can launch a large landmass into space. Unless they finally gimp Superman in a movie and stop giving him ridiculous powers, he doesn't really need help. Thats Donner movie Superman. As far as I know the Nolan/Snyder Superman isn't that Superman. And other versions of Superman can't do all that either. He never did many of those things on Lois and Clark, STAS, JLU, Superfriends, AOS, or Smallville. And even in the Donner movie he still can't do everything. What he was capable of really isn't going to have a lot of bearing on a future version of Superman or the JL. I doubt your going to see Nolans Superman turning back time and I imagine he'll be facing much bigger threats than the Donner/Reeve Superman ever did. Did Donners Superman ever fight 10 beings as strong as he is? Did he ever go to a part of space with a red sun on some kind of mission? we know he did go to other parts of space because of Supergirl so even in that universe he could have limits depending on where he went and the environment. The Donner movie also made a point that turning back time wasn't something he could always do to solve any problem. Not only because of the moral issues that come with it but because of larger universal issues as well. To me lot of his powers and abilities bordered on or WERE terrible deus ex machina that sometimes hurt the Reeve movies. |
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Oct 6, 2010 19:09:23 GMT -5
It's really sad though that both of Donner's movies use time travel to solve all the problems.  Once was one time too many. |
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Oct 6, 2010 19:19:26 GMT -5
The idea of watching a movie where Superman needs to stop and think "Oh crap, I can't do this alone. I need lowly humans in silly outfits to help me too." amuses me. In the event of Kryptonite, send in the humans! There should be a JLA movie which just has the JLA remove all Kryptonite from Earth. Then in the next movie, Superman would disband the JLA and do everything himself. ;D ;D WIN! as an aside i am a lot disappointed that the wolfgang peterson worlds finest didnt happen. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2010 19:25:40 GMT -5
Its one reason why I really can't take the RDC cut seriously as a movie and view it more as an extra. I know Donner wanted HIS vision with as little Lester as possible but if he was unwilling to change THAT WB Thau and Donner should have gone back and re edited STM somehow as well and included a a version of that with the other two versions of STM to give us Donners entire original vision of the two movies as one. STM ending with Lois not dying and the cliffhanger and SII ending with the turning back of time.
heck, I'll be flayed alive for this but time travel to fix something is one small beef I've had even with STM. I get the statement it was making by having Superman do that and appreciate the emotional aspect of it and how it fits into the movie but there's ALSO a part of my mind where it seems like kind of a cop out. Opens a whole can of worms.
|
|
|
|
Post by jak321 on Oct 6, 2010 19:36:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt in the Hat on Oct 6, 2010 21:06:06 GMT -5
Anybody else get a Barry Allen vibe from seeing a pic of Arnie Hammer?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2010 21:17:06 GMT -5
I don't but he does have blonde hair in The Social Network doesn't he?
I don't think Millers JLA should have happened because of the reasons Jimbo stated and more but I'd flip the fuck out if I got a chance to see WETAS JLA costumes and props. it was the most exciting thing about that movie for me.
I bet their Green Lantern costume looked a heck of a lot cooler than Ryan Reynolds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2010 0:26:28 GMT -5
I keep forgetting it was gonna be George Miller directing this.
That makes me a little sad. I mean, I haven't seen much of anything of his since Babe, but godDAMN....the Road Warrior director doing a Justice League movie?! FUCK.
Interesting, indeed. Good? Probably. If not, it still would've been at least shitty fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Oct 7, 2010 0:52:16 GMT -5
Jesus...I had no interest in this when it was being made. Dismissed it as wank. But hearing all this now...it sounds cool. Really cool.
All I want is to read the script and see these guys in their costumes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Oct 7, 2010 1:15:05 GMT -5
Ehh... the kid's too waspy and douchey looking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Oct 7, 2010 1:25:50 GMT -5
heck, I'll be flayed alive for this but time travel to fix something is one small beef I've had even with STM. You're not alone. I think the movie comes to a screeching halt right after the flying sequence. Lex's plan was not that inspired and the time travel plot device erased whatever verisimilitude Donner was so anxious to create. Not to mention it created some weird plot holes. Did Superman completely undo the nuclear missile hitting the fault? If so, then why did Lois still experience the earthquake and blown up gas station? There was a crack that swallowed her car, where did that go the second time around? Did the dam re-burst after Superman resumed normal time again? Acts 1 and 2 of STM are perfection. Act 3, I thought, was pretty stupid though. Lex, as much as he planned the whole thing himself, let everything hang on Otis writing the code down on his arm and inputting the code himself.  Unfortunately, it's really easy to see the exact moment where they realized they were running out of time and money and had to rush things. Legoland, time travel, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Oct 7, 2010 7:34:12 GMT -5
Yeah, to me, the time travel sequence in STM is when the writers ran out of ideas. Screw Superman 2, can somebody make me a fancut where we lose turning back the world, but still get that powerful moment with Reeve and Jor-El in the sky? Damn.
|
|
) 
Once was one time too many.
