|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 17, 2011 15:49:57 GMT -5
With the news (and hints) of Christopher Nolan REALLY making it impossible storywise for Christian Bale to come back after "The Dark Knight Rises"....... I find myself mixed on that choice. ((*In many ways, I think the end of "The Dark Knight" as a perfect ending of sorts to keep the character 'forever alive' so to speak and as we collectively sortof remember him.))
On one hand, it's better to have that creative team give everything and say everything they want to say (versus Sam Raimi, who got screwed on Spiderman 3) the way that they want....and be able to finish it THEIR way...
On the other hand, it closes the possibility of other creative folks coming on to that specific treatment of the character/universe and maybe even adding on & expanding the universe and the story- like "Star Trek" did to a degree.
Unfortunately, keeping it to a trilogy only could also means a pattern of reboots (possibly) after every ten years or so.
What do you folks think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Dec 17, 2011 16:00:36 GMT -5
Until I see how DKR ends, I can't even decide about this.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 17, 2011 16:01:51 GMT -5
Much like Nolan doing HIS vision of Batman Snyder is clearly doing his (and Nolans?) vision of Superman. Doesn't seem to be the traditional or status quo take on the character from the little we've seen.
And if its not I don't want it to be the default big screen version of the character forever so I say why not let Snyder do a movie series that has a definitive end. If another director and writer have their own vision of Supes they should be allowed to do it too. Its not like the Reeve films picked up where TAOS left off.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 17, 2011 17:48:50 GMT -5
Well, that's the thing.... do we want a default big screen version that can become something that has its own internal universe for three films, (like Nolan's Batman seems like it'll be), or six films (like Lucas's Star Wars), or 10-12 films (the Star Trek/Next Gen films)?
I guess I'm asking two different things at the same time:
#1: Open endedness for the series?
#2: More than just one trilogy?
Regarding #2, for myself...
Quality control I know is of course the key, but my own feeling is that there is PLENTY of material that could have been drawn on from the comics, and now that technology is finally here that can provide a fulfilling way to meet those drawn visions in the comics--- why can't there be a 'master plan' for 9 movies? It bombed for Green Lantern, but that's because they just didn't have the right person(s) in the drivers' seat. (Presumably)
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 17, 2011 17:54:30 GMT -5
That's fair....nobody knows, but from what's being said, it sure SOUNDS like there's no way that the story can realistically continue with Bale--- without blowing up continuity.
If there's going to be a definite amount of films to Snyder's Superman, I just wonder what would be preferred- open ended or have a biggie 'ride into the sunset' (something we never have seen yet).
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Dec 17, 2011 22:36:10 GMT -5
It's going to be rebooted in a few years anyway, so fuck it, yeah. Maybe it a trilogy.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 17, 2011 23:19:00 GMT -5
It's going to be rebooted in a few years anyway, so fuck it, yeah. Maybe it a trilogy. Exactly. I mean...why not We all know the reboot is coming in ten years even if its a huge success. See Spider-man. Less than ten if its a failure. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Dec 18, 2011 2:14:57 GMT -5
Actually, MOS is already the third part in a trilogy.
STM, S2 and S3 are the Old Trilogy.
S4, SR and MOS are the New Trilogy.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 19, 2011 0:32:20 GMT -5
That's the sad thing. (and short-sighted)
So long as an actor looks good, (and a franchise is delivering the necessary box office), could you imagine a Superman movie series that starts off with Clark/Supes at 25 or so..... but keeps continuity- and actually AGES the characters (along with the actors) so that we could have something like a "Kingdom Come" movie or a "Dark Knight Returns" movie --- with a tenth film and let the actor playing Clark/Supes BE in his mid 40's or 50?
Personally, (so long as the story and directing was good), I'd be totally down for it--- a movie series that keeps the same actors for 15-20 years--- it'd REALLY be more like a 'life chronicle' of the character of Supes- not just a recurring trilogy of the same stories (and villains) from when he's in his 20's....
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Dec 19, 2011 6:05:05 GMT -5
Remind me how TDKR ends again so I can make an informed decision!
|
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Dec 19, 2011 7:12:41 GMT -5
Enough with the trilogies...why does everything have to end after 3?!?! Leave it open.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Dec 19, 2011 9:15:34 GMT -5
Yeah, I changed my mind. We've never had a successful, long-running Supes franchise. I'd love to see a Superman series get to 5 or 6 with essentially the same cast, loads of villains we've never seen before, etc. I think the template for the Supes films should be The Harry Potter films. It doesn't have to be the same director for every movie, it just has to be consistent with the overall look of the films, the music, the cast, etc.
I'm tired of the idea that everything MUST be rebooted. The reboot should be there for when the franchise has been irrevocably damaged (pre-Nolan Batman), or has simply become too large and unwieldy (Trek/Bond). I have mixed feelings about Spidey, because while I think Spidey 3 was pretty damaging, I still think a proper fourth entry could have redeemed it. But, then again, they had already blown it pretty badly with his best villains in Harry and Norman, so...
I mean, imagine a Supes franchise that's like...
1) Zod/Faora
2) Luthor/Metallo (a slightly more earthbound threat)
3) Brainiac (back to a planet level threat)
4) Luthor/Bizarro or Mxyztplk (lighten things up ala Star Trek IV)
5) Mongul (another planet level threat)
6/7) Darkseid/New Gods (cosmic level threat)
Not to mention that if they wanted to, they could go REALLY crazy and make a movie out of something like "Exile" where Clark, Lois, Perry etc barely figure into the story AT ALL and it's just a straight-up sci-fi flick, with Supes on as many alien planets as you'd find in a Star Wars flick.
Yeah. Forget it. Screw trilogies. I want this new Superman franchise to be built to last. I want it to go on long enough that the cast and the formula is established enough that they can then BREAK the formula and do movies set almost entirely off-planet like "Exile" or on Apokolips/New Genesis.
PLUS, a franchise like this could be the glue for a DC cinematic universe. Hawkman might not be able to support his own movie, but we can have Thanagarians helping out Superman. And, as far as I'm concerned, there's no better way to re-introduce the Green Lantern concept than by having The Guardians appear in a Superman film down the line.
Once all this stuff has been done, then yeah, I can see why they'd feel the need to reboot.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Dec 19, 2011 9:35:28 GMT -5
I'd love to see a high-end TV mini-series with an "Exile" like plot
Infact it could have an "Incredible Hulk TV show" type structure for the first half.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 19, 2011 9:37:00 GMT -5
Aaaaaand they're never EVER going to do any of that. Cinematic DC universe? And ATP will stop making CGI jokes too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Dec 19, 2011 10:25:33 GMT -5
Five years ago, the thought of a cinematic Marvel Universe culminating in an Avengers movie was also unthinkable.
Things can change awfully fast, and studios will follow the money. I think Thor and Captain America were the real tests for Marvel studios, and they passed. They passed the fanboy test, and, more importantly, they passed the box-office test with flying colors. Don't think WB hasn't noticed.
WB needs a new Harry Potter more than they need another Batman franchise. Superman's world is inherently more suited to action figures, video games, and t-shirts than Nolan's Batman flicks. It's no coincidence that Diane Nelson is in charge of DC now, as she essentially shepherded the Harry Potter franchise. This is WB's new business model, where DC is intended to be the farm in the hopes that ONE concept sticks. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they try to make Superman that concept.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 19, 2011 11:06:03 GMT -5
The Marvel and DC situations are radically different. For Marvel this plan of theirs HAD to work. Think about how much money they borrowed and how much they invested into it early on. Making MARVEL films is a priority for Marvel studios. Those are the only kinds of films they make.
Thats why they can put out a film or two a year.
Making DC films is NOT a major priority for WB. They have a bunch of non comic book movie properties that they develop. We could easily go a year or two without seeing ANY DC films. There was what...3 years between The Dark Knight and Green Lantern and they had nothing to do with each other? DC is just one pool among many to choose from.
There are people at Marvel Studios that know comic books and how this kind of world operates. Not so much so with WB. DC is just a a small part of the larger Time Warner whole. They aren't as invested in these characters emotionally because its a bigger company making the decisions. Sure Marvel is now owned by Disney but Disney has left them alone so far. They also started on this road to The Avengers BEFORE they sold to Disney. The plans were already in motion.
Marvel had some kind of vague plan from the beginning. Anybody who signed up had to sign up under the condition that these films would be cross pollinating.
WB doesn't seem to have one thats concrete otherwise they would have begun implementing it by now. There's been talk I'm sure but we've seen nothing on film. The last time there was even a KERNEL of an idea for a "shared universe" it was in Superman Returns and I'm pretty sure that ain't getting a sequel. Also are all the directors and actors going to be as willing to sign on for a big cross pollinated universe? Nolan isn't. Batman's going to have to start from scratch in a lot of ways to be able to fit into a shared universe. Especially if Nolan gives his Batman a definitive ending.
Green Lantern was the first major effort out of the gate by DC Entertainment, the company put together the shepherd the DC brand onto the big screen. It was a MASSIVE financial failure. Something that that doesn't inspire confidence in Hollywood to take risks. They already don't take risks. Thats why we see reboots and remakes.
WB wants Chris Nolan to be the "godfather" of DC films if they can get him. Even if he's not directing Batman. Nolans made his feelings on the concept of a shared universe very clear. He has no desire to see Superman and Batman cross over in any way.
The very reason George Millers JLA didn't even try to get Routh and Bale or use those versions of Superman and Batman is because they didn't think Nolan would go for it. So the JLA Batman was supposed to be a different Batman from the Nolanverse Batman.
JLA ended up not happening at all at least partly because Nolan and Bale didn't want another version of Batman or another universe on the screen while they were doing their Batman and they weren't going to let their Batman have anything to do with JLA.
Nolan = money in WB's eyes. They'll want to keep him happy even if its just as a producer. WB has said this. If he has no interest in creating some large shared universe on the big screen I doubt its going to happen cause WB loves money and Nolan is the closest thing to a guaranteed moneymaker they have right now.
Its taken Marvel 4 years to get this far with their shared universe. Green Lantern was WB's best opportunity but they really didn't do anything to say that there was something else of the DCU beyond the Green lantern mythology.
I doubt MOS or The Dark Knight Rises will lay any foundation for a DC universe since Nolan and Goyer were so involved. with Green Lantern being a flop who knows when we'll even see the next non Super/Bat DC film?
So its going to take at least 4 or 5 years before we see another chance to begin to lay the groundwork for any kind of shared DC universe. And several more years before it starts to really pay off. We're looking at 10 years down the line easy. Thats IF WB can get any other DC movies off the ground. And would they want to when they can just reboot Superman and Batman into infinity? Those are the biggest moneymakers. Even when lower tier characters get a shot WB's interference poisons the well for them. So I'm not sure they'll want to take a risk on a lesser known DC character any time soon.
Time Warner has owned DC comics for over 40 years. They've had a better chance to do a shared universe than anyone. If WB can make money of their DC properties without a shared universe why change that? Their corporate environment is far less friendly when it comes to cultivating the idea of a shared universe.
As far as Supermans part in this and multiple Superman films this is all ASSUMING Superman's legal troubles are worked out very quickly after MOS's release and strongly enough in WB's favor.
Didn't WB representatives say under oath that at the time they didn't even have a Superman film in active development? And that the only reason MOS went into production is because the courts told them that unless they had a Superman film in production by 2013 chances were they wouldn't be allowed to legally make one?
Can anyone guarantee that we'll even be able to legally see Superman in another film or Superman as part of a shared universe or Justice League?
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Dec 19, 2011 11:41:21 GMT -5
the "legal troubles" surrounding Superman are a smokescreen, and will be resolved in WB's favor.
Green Lantern was a failure, but WB owns all of these properties. The plan is to exploit ALL of them. We're gonna see more DC product out of WB, both at the TV and film level than we ever thought possible in the next five years. You can take that to the bank.
Diane Nelson is no dummy. She's where she is for a reason. And WB desperately needs to replace the Harry Potter franchise. That's all I'm sayin'. Whether any of it actually succeeds or not is another story.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 19, 2011 11:49:34 GMT -5
the "legal troubles" surrounding Superman are a smokescreen, and will be resolved in WB's favor. Green Lantern was a failure, but WB owns all of these properties. The plan is to exploit ALL of them. We're gonna see more DC product out of WB, both at the TV and film level than we ever thought possible in the next five years. You can take that to the bank. Diane Nelson is no dummy. She's where she is for a reason. And WB desperately needs to replace the Harry Potter franchise. That's all I'm sayin'. Whether any of it actually succeeds or not is another story. Maybe it will be resolved but maybe not. Again none of us can say for sure. Even though WB owns all these properties Green Lantern was their BEST shot outside of Superman and Batman. Just cause they own em doesn't mean they're going to put the effort into having them all cross over or even seeing that enough of them make it to the big screen. Or even the small screen They tried to spin a LOT of shows off of Smallville. Birds of Prey failed. Mercy Reef didn't get picked up. The Starman pilot never happened. I'm pretty sure Human Target is canceled too. They could try to develop all these movies and tv shows but the chances are slimmer than ever that most of them will even get off the ground. exploiting all of them doesn't mean we are going to see them all cross pollinating or even in big budget Hollywood movies. It could be cartoons or tv shows or video games that have nothing to do with each other. if they can still make money separately where's the incentive to build some kind of shared universe? And once again there's the Nolan factor. IF they want him involved with more DC properties even in a developmental role who is to say they want to cross him. Christopher Nolan has a proven track record., He's the golden goose. WB is going to want him. Everybody thought Geoff Johns would be the savior with working with DCE. Didn't help Green Lantern. Maybe it wasn't his fault but his inclusion didn't produce the results fans hoped for. Watchmen, WB's multiple superhero effort, also underperformed. Between the failure of B and C level characters at the box office like Green Lantern, Johna Hex, Constantine, etc., WB's unwillingness to admit WHY they all failed, the stalling of movies like Flash and Wonder Woman, Superman's cloudy legal future, no strong desire from WB to see cross pollination happen I just have serious doubts that we'll see any shared universe from DC like we've seen from Marvel any time soon. Of all the B level DC films in recent years Constantine was by far the most successful but it didn't do well enough to even guarantee a sequel. Its domestic box office was soft and it made most of its money overseas. Seems like Joel Silver has a strange hold on the rights to produce stuff like Swamp Thing, Sgt. Rock, and Wonder Woman for decades with terrible results. Jesus I can remember hearing about a Wonder Woman flick 12 years ago with Sandra Bullock. After Green Lantern who else does WB have left in the DC bag that could be a hit? Flash? Captain Marvel seems to have stalled. It could be a great kids film but it seems like its on life support. We've all seen how long legal and business troubles have kept Bond gridlocked at various points so...good luck Superman. WB hasn't had its "Iron Man," something to give them clout for this idea and kick it off. The Avengers and the power to cross pollinate films is really the house Iron Man built. It wouldn't be possible without that movies breakout success or RDJ's popularity in the title role. Thanks to Nolan it doesn't look like Batman or maybe even Superman are going to be allowed to be that. It takes years to make it happen and it seems like WB hasn't even put on their shoes much less taken the first steps towards it. Even with non Marvel Studios films from Fox, Sony, Lionsgate, etc the Marvel brand name was out there strong for years before this was all set in motion. Doesn't seem like DC's is quite as strong even though a lot of its characters are just as well known since the only big screen hit has been Batman. That Marvel logo at the start of movies like Spider-man II and FF and Hulk was a smart marketing move. |
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Dec 19, 2011 12:02:49 GMT -5
well, Nolan has stated pretty explicitly that his Batman wouldn't work in any kind of shared universe. I can't help but wonder if that's why WB is allowing him to "end" his Batman, despite it being a guaranteed box-office draw.
What I'm speculating here is that, not necessarily with this film, but with an ongoing Superman franchise, WB would have the opportunity to seed a shared universe if they chose. But, even if they don't, we can still get a Superman movie that features characters that aren't explicitly "Superman" such as Darkseid and his attendant mythology. Basically, you can acknowledge the wider DCU in these films without the pressure of building up to a big team-up film like Avengers.
Personally, I don't think we'll ever see a proper JLA film. I think establishing the JLA is more difficult than The Avengers, since the filmmakers wisely chose to make The Avengers just an arm of a government agency. It'd be more difficult to do that with JLA (unless...it's the U.N.? JLI?). Additionally, I think some characters, like Flash, are more suited to development in other media. I can't really think of a story I'd like to see in a 2 hour Flash movie, for example (and I am a near encyclopedia of Flash lore). But, a Flash animated series is another story.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 19, 2011 12:12:19 GMT -5
Even if Nolans steps away as director he may still be involved as a producer. Same with Superman. WB has considered having him work on some capacity on ALL their dc related films. And he's said he doesn't just want his Batman interacting with other characters but he doesn't find the concept interesting at all. That means ANY Superman meeting ANY Batman or Flash.
Unless he changes his mind best you're going to get is vague references like in Superman Returns.
To me a shared universe thats actually interesting is one where we see one character from one movie pop up in another even in a cameo. The chances are slim that we'll even see that because all these things between different producers and directors and writers have to align properly.
The reference to Clark Kent was cut out of Green Lantern. Probably because by the time they were ready to film their long in development script they had no idea WHICH version or what kind of take on Clark Kent/Superman would be used later.
WB also doesn't understand how to utilize lesser known characters like Hawkman or Swamp Thing or Hex.
Hex COULD have been their Blade. but they botched it massively by thinking they knew how to make it more marketable.
That movie could have been done on the cheap and made a bigger profit even as a straight up dark/slightly occult western.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Dec 19, 2011 12:27:06 GMT -5
I haven't been able to bring myself to watch Hex.
Alright, I get what you're saying about the shared universe. To me, I don't care if there's big cameos or team-ups. It'd be enough for me to see Thanagarians or Guardians or Rannians and stuff like that in a Superman flick, even as generic characters or (ahem) "created in CGI". As for Darkseid and friends, as far as I'm concerned, they were introduced in Superman comics, so they may as well be tied to the Superman franchise!
Plus, the easiest out for these cameos would be the toughest to pull off. Yeah, Clark Kent showing up to ask questions at a press conference in say, a Flash movie? Awesome idea! But, then you gotta pay A-List talent to take the time to do it, etc. Yeah, I see how that's difficult.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 19, 2011 12:42:30 GMT -5
Its just working out the logistics...especially if there is no plan in place.
I mean if they want to put a Flash cameo in Superman before Flash comes out they have to have him cast and make sure thats who The Flash director wants. Whose to say the Flash film will stay on track in development.
The Green Lantern producers would have had egg on their face trying to build a shared universe by using Routh as Kent when Cavill was playing him in MOS. They had to wait to see how things played out.
And producers are so anal about this sh**. WB wouldn't even allow Wonder Woman or Batman on Smallville (not that I'm complaining). They didn't let Batman villains be used on JLA after The Batman premiered.
I'd love to see it but I'm not even gonna bother speculating about what might happen because its such a downer when I realize chances are it won't.
I think Darkseid is an easy "in" for a Superman movie since the two characters have been so associated for the past 15 years in other media.
Otherwise they need a strong enough catalyst to make things like this happen. Iron Man was a pretty strong catalyst.
edit
just remembered Amanda Waller was supposed to maybe/kind of/sort of be WB's attempt and laying the foundation for a larger DC universe. Or at least Angela Bassett hoped so. She talked about it maybe begin their Sam Jackson/Nic Fury.
But I don't remember Waller making any statements about what else or who else could be out there. Not overtly anyway.
The movie flopped so...back to square one on that.
Too bad Bassett never got to play Storm.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Dec 19, 2011 13:18:35 GMT -5
Enough with the trilogies...why does everything have to end after 3?!?! S4 and SR are why. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 19, 2011 13:23:16 GMT -5
Enough with the trilogies...why does everything have to end after 3?!?! S4 and SR are why. Superman was ending after III anyway, dooftard. Reeve was ready to move on and thats why the Salkinds did SUPERGIRL. Try again.  |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Dec 19, 2011 13:31:25 GMT -5
Superman was ending after III anyway, dooftard. Reeve was ready to move on and thats why the Salkinds did SUPERGIRL. Try again. OK, how about TPM, AoTC and ROTS. That is why you stop after three. |
|
