LA Times: WB to shoot Justice League next year and release it Summer 2015

[Flashpoint]

This all depends on how successful MOS turns out to be.

As I've stated numerous times, the buzz on MOS has been refreshingly positive since the release of both the teaser trailer to theaters, plus the extended trailer shown at SDCC (which was excellent). Yes, I appreciate that is no guarantee how it will do at the box office. Still, it is not unusual for bad word-of-mouth to be evident way in advance of release and there are many documented cases of this. X3 had problems in pre- and post-production from the get-go once Singer left to make Superman Returns and it didn't help that the notorious Brett Ratner was in charge of the whole mess.

So far, all signs for MOS have been surprisingly positive. Certainly, WB putting Christopher Nolan and David Goyer in charge of the story offers great promise for the script. I'm not alone in this assessment either. I think it's safe to say what everyone is worried about isn't the Nolan/Goyer-penned MOS; it's Justice League.

[mega_pac]

It would be simple to keep Hal as Green Lantern, John Steward should be introduce in GL 2.

And about a possible JL movie set-up. I don't know how the Justice League was formed, but I think Superman and Batman should the first two to recruit the other members. So what if, after Sup's kick Zod back to the phantom zone, MOS end with a real threat that Superman cannot handle alone? I'd like to see Superman fly to Gotham and turn on the bat signal. Not that he need that to find Batman but IMO it would be a great post credit scene.

And about the Avengers ending, I didn't knew who Thanos was,
so when I saw him I tought he was the king of the Skrulls and that it would lead to a Secret Invasion story.

[Flashpoint]

Im curious- How did you know that WB has learned their lessons from Gls failure and if so wht lesson did they learn?

I believe WB's actions so far demonstrate a change in their attitudes and approach. There's been none of the hype like there was with the promotion of GL. WB is playing things much, much closer to their vests and keeping an ironclad lid on development and production of the film. I think it's also very telling how different the script development is going this time.

Outside of Robinov's early leak about his plans for Justice League right before GL came out, WB kept all work on the JL script in total secrecy for a full year. That wasn't the case with GL. WB was fairly free with public announcements about every step of development on GL. Not so with JL. WB isn't bragging about work on the film and they're devoting extra time to finesse-ing the script as well as being very cautious about the hiring process for a director.

That restraint and lack of bragging combined with quiet, long-term work on the script indicates to me that they aren't going about this production blithely or intemperately. It's definitely not rushed. Announcements aren't being crowed from the rooftops either. The self-restraint and caution seems to be a reflection of how badly they got burned with GL, IMHO--and to me, it's a good sign that they aren't rushing or taking anything for granted.

[EricAD]

No, I'd say they had similar problems in that neither Whedon nor Kelley "got" Diana as a character. There are several examples I've pointed to many times in the past year or two. One of the most glaring is Whedon's definition of the relationship between Diana and Steve Trevor as being virtually identical to the one between Buffy Sommers and Xander with Steve "giving her $#!t" for being naive in the ways of "Man's World." There are a lot of ways you could play that dynamic out, but Diana and Steve's relationship was always based on mutual trust and respect. They have had their disagreements over the years, but Steve has never "given her $#!t" or talked down to her like she's dumb or foolish.

Worse still was the fact that Whedon never, ever could come up with a villain for WW. He wanted to create an all-new adversary. WB gave him over a year--and Whedon came up with zilch, nada, zip, nothing. He also didn't want to use any of Diana's pre-existing villains, not even Ares, Circe or The Cheetah. The man never could come up with a completed villain for WW despite being given a clean slate to create anything he wanted.

Top those things off with Whedon's own public statements that he doesn't grasp DC characters nearly as well as he does Marvel characters. I am sorry, Whedon fans, but when your man admits publicly that he doesn't understand DC as well as he understands Marvel (plus he can't even come up with a villain of his very own) then I think it's obvious he was ill-suited to the project. Not every creator is ideally-suited to every project no matter how talented they are.

I'm not trying to be argumentative just to be argumentative Flashpoint, but a lot of the stuff you're saying here just isn't true. Whedon didn't do "zilch, nada, zip, nothing" like you say he did. In fact, he turned in a full script around December of 2005. This is an excerpt from an interview he gave to the Onion AV Club a few years back:

Onion: With Wonder Woman, was it an "agree to disagree" sort of situation?
Whedon: I honestly don't know. I had a vision and they didn't seem to respond to the vision. I asked what it was that they wanted and Joel Silver said "I don't know." At first it was great, like "hey, they're letting me run with it." But then I figured out it was like "Firefly" – they were letting me run with it because they didn't like any of it. There was really no feedback because nobody knew what it was I wasn't giving them. I asked them point blank, because I'm always adaptable and collaborative. It seemed like nothing landed with them at all. It was clear that was happening because they said "Instead of your next draft, just give us an outline." Give us an outline means "we don't want your next draft." An outline never reads well. I needed to do it anyway, because the plot was wonky. So I got the plot in shape, all the themes, all the moments, all the things that I knew would work… but they said "This isn't happening."

So he did complete a draft... he only did an outline of what would have been his second pass at the character, but there is a Whedon Wonder Woman script in the Warners vaults. Both Mark Millar and Bruce Timm have had a chance to read it even, and both mentioned it in interviews the past few years:

This is what Mark Millar recently said about it:

Q: Are there any other superhero franchises you’d like to re-cook if you had the time…? Wonder Woman could use a hand…

Mark Millar: Actually, no. I think if you’d asked me a few years ago I’d say yeah, but to me I really like working in comics; so many of my friends who work in movies just tell me horror stories. You’ve got to look at Joss Whedon as the perfect example. Joss is one of the best writers on the planet. Brilliant guy, great writer, excellent director, white hot - and they brought him on to Wonder Woman. And they just wasted two years of his life. He didn’t have time to do anything else. He handed in a really good Wonder Woman script that just really got picked apart and ended up just not happening. And you never get those two years back.

And this is what Bruce Timm recently said about it:

Q: Will we ever see a Wonder Woman feature film?

TIMM: She's been a notoriously tough nut to crack in coming up with a movie story for her. Joss Whedon did a version that I actually really liked, but that didn't get the greenlight for whatever reason. There was another script that was fast-tracked for awhile, but has since been put on the back-burner. It's difficult to say.


As for the notion that he couldn't come up with a villain, he DID come up with one, and even mentioned that the villain was rooted in Greek Mythology. Just because he didn't use Ares, Cheetah or Circe (the only three big villains Diana really has) doesn't mean he wasn't going to come up with a villain that respected her mythos. Certainly more than the tv series ever did, which barely mentioned Diana's connections to the Greek Gods, if ever.

As for the Diana/Steve dynamic, he said he was going to have Steve give her s&%$ in a romantic comedy kind of way, not in a mean way... the way he described it sounded a lot more like how it played out in the recent animated Wonder Woman film. If you didn't like the Diana/Steve Trevor relationship there, then ok...but I think their banter in that gave their relationship a little bit of zing it had always been missing from the comics. Their relationship was so bland in the comics, the post Crisis version made her more of a brother figure and almost no one complained, because their romantic relationship had been so dull in the comics for years at that point.

[Flashpoint]

I'm not trying to be argumentative just to be argumentative Flashpoint, but a lot of the stuff you're saying here just isn't true. Whedon didn't do "zilch, nada, zip, nothing" like you say he did. In fact, he turned in a full script around December of 2005. This is an excerpt from an interview he gave to the Onion AV Club a few years back:

Onion: With Wonder Woman, was it an "agree to disagree" sort of situation?
Whedon: I honestly don't know. I had a vision and they didn't seem to respond to the vision. I asked what it was that they wanted and Joel Silver said "I don't know." At first it was great, like "hey, they're letting me run with it." But then I figured out it was like "Firefly" – they were letting me run with it because they didn't like any of it. There was really no feedback because nobody knew what it was I wasn't giving them. I asked them point blank, because I'm always adaptable and collaborative. It seemed like nothing landed with them at all. It was clear that was happening because they said "Instead of your next draft, just give us an outline." Give us an outline means "we don't want your next draft." An outline never reads well. I needed to do it anyway, because the plot was wonky. So I got the plot in shape, all the themes, all the moments, all the things that I knew would work… but they said "This isn't happening."

So he did complete a draft... he only did an outline of what would have been his second pass at the character, but there is a Whedon Wonder Woman script in the Warners vaults. Both Mark Millar and Bruce Timm have had a chance to read it even, and both mentioned it in interviews the past few years:

This is what Mark Millar recently said about it:

Q: Are there any other superhero franchises you’d like to re-cook if you had the time…? Wonder Woman could use a hand…

Mark Millar: Actually, no. I think if you’d asked me a few years ago I’d say yeah, but to me I really like working in comics; so many of my friends who work in movies just tell me horror stories. You’ve got to look at Joss Whedon as the perfect example. Joss is one of the best writers on the planet. Brilliant guy, great writer, excellent director, white hot - and they brought him on to Wonder Woman. And they just wasted two years of his life. He didn’t have time to do anything else. He handed in a really good Wonder Woman script that just really got picked apart and ended up just not happening. And you never get those two years back.

And this is what Bruce Timm recently said about it:

Q: Will we ever see a Wonder Woman feature film?

TIMM: She's been a notoriously tough nut to crack in coming up with a movie story for her. Joss Whedon did a version that I actually really liked, but that didn't get the greenlight for whatever reason. There was another script that was fast-tracked for awhile, but has since been put on the back-burner. It's difficult to say.


As for the notion that he couldn't come up with a villain, he DID come up with one, and even mentioned that the villain was rooted in Greek Mythology. Just because he didn't use Ares, Cheetah or Circe (the only three big villains Diana really has) doesn't mean he wasn't going to come up with a villain that respected her mythos. Certainly more than the tv series ever did, which barely mentioned Diana's connections to the Greek Gods, if ever.

As for the Diana/Steve dynamic, he said he was going to have Steve give her s&%$ in a romantic comedy kind of way, not in a mean way... the way he described it sounded a lot more like how it played out in the recent animated Wonder Woman film. If you didn't like the Diana/Steve Trevor relationship there, then ok...but I think their banter in that gave their relationship a little bit of zing it had always been missing from the comics. Their relationship was so bland in the comics, the post Crisis version made her more of a brother figure and almost no one complained, because their romantic relationship had been so dull in the comics for years at that point.

As I said before, I've gone round and round with Whedon devotees about his failed WW project several times. I won't rebut everything you've said here point-by-point. And there are several articles about the subject all over the web. I think ScreenRant is one of many who sum up my feelings about it fairly well:
http://screenrant.com/joss-whedon-wo...-sandy-139177/

That’s all to say: Whedon’s ideas for a Wonder Woman movie sound interesting, but perhaps a bit too similar to what he’s done in the past. So maybe it’s for the best that he’s instead spreading his (artistic) wings more by handling The Avengers.

I appreciate the wild enthusiasm Whedon's fans have for the WW movie that could've been. But like the quote above says, Whedon on Avengers instead of WW was probably for the best.

[EricAD]

I won't argue that he was ultimately better suited for the Avengers, he almost certainly was. I'm just arguing that we don't know enough to say that his WW ideas were god awful or dreck. I'll agree with Screenrant.com on the notion that his WW would have bore some resemblance to stuff he's done in the past. It's just that when I read his descriptions of Steve Trevor's role in the movie, it sounds a lot like Katie Holmes' Rachel character in Batman Begins...a love interest that also points the protagonist in the right direction, and makes them question their motivations. I don't think Bruce Wayne was undermined in Batman Begins for having that, nor do I think Diana would have been for having that either, IMO.

[Judge-Dredd]

Rumours of Gordon-Levitt playing Batman in JL movie.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?p...ticle&id=42367

I really hope this doesn't happen.

[Robotman4]

I really hope that this rumor is just WB trying to hype the Dark Knight Rises DVD release. The Nolan films were great but it's time to move on. We don't need John Blake as Batman. Reboot with a new Bruce Wayne and supporting characters.

[Bruce Kent]

If it didn't confuse people, I would love to see the actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Batman/Bruce Wayne, but that won't happen and I don't think they will stop using Bruce Wayne in movies.

[Jabare]

Rumours of Gordon-Levitt playing Batman in JL movie.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?p...ticle&id=42367

I really hope this doesn't happen.

just sounds like a terrible idea all around

[Zionite1]

I believe WB's actions so far demonstrate a change in their attitudes and approach. There's been none of the hype like there was with the promotion of GL. WB is playing things much, much closer to their vests and keeping an ironclad lid on development and production of the film. I think it's also very telling how different the script development is going this time.

Outside of Robinov's early leak about his plans for Justice League right before GL came out, WB kept all work on the JL script in total secrecy for a full year. That wasn't the case with GL. WB was fairly free with public announcements about every step of development on GL. Not so with JL. WB isn't bragging about work on the film and they're devoting extra time to finesse-ing the script as well as being very cautious about the hiring process for a director.

That restraint and lack of bragging combined with quiet, long-term work on the script indicates to me that they aren't going about this production blithely or intemperately. It's definitely not rushed. Announcements aren't being crowed from the rooftops either. The self-restraint and caution seems to be a reflection of how badly they got burned with GL, IMHO--and to me, it's a good sign that they aren't rushing or taking anything for granted.

Personally WB keeping quiet about their JL plans only tells me that they dont want to deal with the possible negative press like they got with GL as it cld afect the movies succcess.Of course it cld be due to them planning it out like you said but well see.

What I hope Wb has learned from Gl is not to be formulaic as well as not to just try and cash into a formula.Its prety clear that Gl was meant to mimic and cash in on Iron mans hype and it failed.
I also hope Wb has leaned the importance of understanding source material and the appeal of the source material-The GL movie showed a definite lack of appreciation of the Gl mythos and the script lacked the appeal of the Gl mthos.It was simply put a Generic superhero movie.

I hope they realize simply releasing a well selling superhero comic is not enough.They need to work hard-real hard. Dont just say"We got Bats and Supes" Let Superman returns and Green lantern be constant remindedrs of what taking things for granted can do.

[ascended]

Im not taking that seriously. An "unnamed source" normally means "completely made-up." Especially with news that stinks of fan wank like this does.

Now, if Nolan wanted to come back and use Gordon-Levitt as Nightwing......I could get down with that, actually. I really, really could. Sure, its not Grayson. But who cares? The setup is there, its solid, and Nolan spending more time in Gotham can only be a good thing.

But Batman? No. Time for a new Bat, and one that works better in the shared universe WB/DC is hoping to craft.

But then, I'll be honest, I dont really care about the League film at this point. I mean, the Nolan approach obviously worked great for Batman. Its working really well for Arrow (surprising as hell given the network) and we'll see how it translates for Superman. If MoS turns out to be good, then I will start paying more attention to WB's League efforts.

But if Man of Steel fails, like so many other DC movies, then all the plans for this JLA movie will likely fall apart.

One step at a time. Lets see how Nolan/Snyder/Goyer's Superman plays out. Then we'll see if a good JLA film can be spun out of it.

[Flashpoint]

Im not taking that seriously. An "unnamed source" normally means "completely made-up." Especially with news that stinks of fan wank like this does.

Now, if Nolan wanted to come back and use Gordon-Levitt as Nightwing......I could get down with that, actually. I really, really could. Sure, its not Grayson. But who cares? The setup is there, its solid, and Nolan spending more time in Gotham can only be a good thing.

But Batman? No. Time for a new Bat, and one that works better in the shared universe WB/DC is hoping to craft.

But then, I'll be honest, I dont really care about the League film at this point. I mean, the Nolan approach obviously worked great for Batman. Its working really well for Arrow (surprising as hell given the network) and we'll see how it translates for Superman. If MoS turns out to be good, then I will start paying more attention to WB's League efforts.

But if Man of Steel fails, like so many other DC movies, then all the plans for this JLA movie will likely fall apart.

One step at a time. Lets see how Nolan/Snyder/Goyer's Superman plays out. Then we'll see if a good JLA film can be spun out of it.

It is a rumor (and one not from a big name site like AICN or Deadline Hollywood) so I admit to being skeptical. The part that does resonate with me is the idea of Batman being the anchor for a post-credits scene in Man Of Steel. I would've preferred Gina Carano as WW, but it's impossible to argue with using Batman instead. It's the perfect answer/foil to Marvel using Nick Fury. You can't get bigger than Batman and word of Batman appearing in MOS will get audiences to stay in their seats to watch the scene.

If Levitt is playing anyone, it ought to be Bruce Wayne. But I'm not complaining. The very first cinematic onscreen meeting of Superman and Batman is going to be a moment to anticipate, savor and enjoy.

[Zionite1]

Well im pretty sure the JGL rumour is bull and Im happy that it probably is.I honestly dont want to seeNolans Batman in this.

Reason being that Nolans bats is drastically underpowered.

Nolans Batman doesnt have the intellectual,physical powess to be of use to a Jl and his resources are not fantastical enough to help them.
A Batman who is not the worlds greatest detective,Martial artists and/or does not have outrageous gadgetry is not worthy to be on the JL team.
Batman needs to the worlds most dangerous man.Its the only way to justify why a normal human can play a role on the team

Thers also the act that I want to see a Clark/Bruce Dynamic.Without it and no solo movie leadups Jl really has no appeal for me and wld probaly skip watching it in Cinemas like I did SR and GL.

[Mr. Holmes]

Yeah this is why I hate comic book fans sometimes.