Justice League movies in the works

Wonder Woman would seem to be next to impossible to translate to the screen gracefully.

 

If they can make Thor work, I think they can pull off Wonder Woman. They're pretty similar in concept, and if you get a credible actress it can bridge the gender gap. The hard part, of course, is making them seem different enough that she doesn't feel like a Thor wanna-be, and finding the right actress. Even though they weren't quite the right look, Angeline Jolie or Lucy Liu in their prime could've done it. Not so sure there's an A-list actress now with those kind of action chops. The window to make Wonder Woman might have been around 10 years ago.

 

Marvel Studios didn't even have one hit when it first hinted at Avengers. They had it as the post-credit scenes in Iron Man, which was far from a sure thing a huge success. I thought they had already announced Avengers before Thor came out.

 

As I understood, Marvel Studios had a general idea about how to build to an Avengers film, but of course, it wasn't a guarantee that the films building toward it would draw. Robert Downey Jr. making quite the comeback was a big part of Iron Man's success, but it helped that the film was well written and directed.

My concern is that it doesn't seem that Warner Studios has a plan in place and is just throwing out whatever it can. They want to do Batman and Superman together, then toss in Wonder Woman and Cyborg along for the ride. They've been wanting to do a Wonder Woman flick for years and can't get a director to come on board. On top of that, they're trying to re-invent Superman because supposedly the down to earth, by the book hero doesn't sell any more.

Marvel has made Captain America work as the down to earth, by the book hero who sometimes struggles to fit in and that's why there's great chemistry with Iron Man, the cocky loner who prefers to take the direct approach to everything. It's the same with Superman and Batman. When Batman is the secretive hero who pushes the limits just enough to scare criminals, while Superman goes by the book but sometimes struggles to fit in, that's when the dynamic works.

 

DC's problem is that their big two, Superman and Batman, are so iconic they can carry films and franchises all by themselves.

Really, no single hero in the Marvelverse, with the probable exception of Spider-Man, comes up to that standard. Therefore they can jam Avengers movies up with 25 minor heroes and nobody gets upset.

Every single second in a DC movie any of the jayvee-roster heroes are on stage, half the audience is going to be tapping its feet and saying, "come on, get these clowns out of here and get Batman [or Superman] back on screen so he can kick some ass."

Gal Gadot is awful casting. 5-foot-5 and 115 pounds. That should be about the size of one of Wonder Woman's legs. Wonder Woman, the character, is supposed to be an Amazon, meaning remarkably large physically (for a woman).

Pretty much all JLA movies in the end will boil down to: the minor heroes each pull a surprising trick that justifies their presence, Batman does the detective leg work, then Superman swoops in to put the big baddie away.

 

Two problems here:

1) Batman has shown he can carry a franchise. The jury is still out on Superman. Yes, his first two films did fine. But Superman III was 12th at box office the year it came out; Superman IV was 69th. These are not numbers to brag about. "Man of Steel" got mixed reviews and dropped heavily after a strong first weekend. Warner execs weren't happy with that, which is part of why they're pushing to move the sequel into May.

2) I don't know what you use to judge no single hero coming up to that standard, but that statement was just wrong on so many levels. Iron Man was a hit before Avengers. Captain America and Thor are both making plenty of money. Wolverine, after a crappy start, recovered nicely. All of those characters are carrying franchises better than Superman and in some cases as well as Batman.

Marvel was brilliant in building their characters BEFORE the team movie, so when it got to the team-up, people didn't care who was on screen. It wasn't that the characters weren't as iconic. Marvel made them into icons. They made people want to see everyone on screen, with the possible exception of Hawkeye, who had a limited role anyway.

DC, on the other hand, has fumbled with any DC movie that they've made in the last 30 years that doesn't have Batman in it. Superman isn't the franchise you think he is; the numbers show that. They could have established the Green Lantern, and they failed. He's no worse a character than Tony Stark, but the script was atrocious.

THAT's DC's problem. It's not that their main two are such icons. It's that Warner Bros. has done a piss-poor job getting good scripts for everyone that doesn't wear a bat symbol on their chest. They do a great job on the animated side, where they've had some great Green Lantern stuff and the depth of the Justice League is a bonus instead of a limitation, but they can't move that success to the live-action side.

But the problem goes deeper for DC than just WB. If you look at their comic sales, Batman carries the company. Superman's comics don't sell for crap unless Batman is in it. Marvel, meanwhile, gets good sales from a good mix of titles.

 

Aside from Batman, DC's heroes are boring as hell. That's how come Marvel passed them back in the '60s in the first place.

 

There is nothing boring about Linda Evans.

 

Neophyte question, Why aren't there animated Super Hero movies for adults? If its animated with the same quality as the books and written for adults, I would to pay to see it on a big screen.

 

They have them, direct to DVD stuff.

To me, and I've said this before here, is the DC characters are almost too iconic. No one, outside three fanboys, gives a shit if you change a major character in the Avengers. Because not many know the back stories that well.

You cast a 5-10 female action star as Wonder Woman and people freak because she isn't 6-2 and 215 while no one cares that Hugh Jackman is a foot taller than the comic book Wolverine.

You have Superman kill Zod and half the theater walks out in disgust.

That's why the DC characters are trickier, at least to me.

 

You obviously don't remember the reaction when people heard that 6-foot-2 Hugh Jackman was going to play Wolverine, who should be about 6-foot-2. People did flip out over that. Fans were every bit as critical as they have been of the Wonder Woman casting. But they wanted to see X-Men in live action so badly that they went anyway and Jackman won everybody over.

Spider-Man is every bit as iconic as Batman or Superman. There was definitely some grumbling about the organic web shooters when the first one with Tobey Maguire came out. But again, the movie was done well enough that people got over it.

It isn't about DC characters being too iconic. That's just an excuse. It is about the filmmakers doing a better job with the Marvel characters to this point. What major thing have any of the Marvel heroes done in the movies that was out of character?

To be fair, I still question if Superman killing Zod to save that family was really that out of character. My larger problem was that they didn't earn his anguished reaction. Also, he lets Pa Kent die to protect his secret? No. Sorry, THAT is the moment that was out of character. The Superman I've seen in previous movies, television series and comics wouldn't let anybody die to protect his secret, much less the man who raised him.

On the topic of quality, animated superhero movies for adults, as you said, there is a lot out there. DC has done some fantastic stuff in that area. They have also kicked Marvel's ass over the years when it comes to animated series on television, starting with Batman: The Animated Series. Anything in the Timmverse (look it up) is high quality.