Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 267
  1. #136
    Elder Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    16,884

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mat001 View Post
    His wanting to kill the Joker was in line with the Burton/Schumacher films and wanting to keep Superman from stopping him doesn't make Batman a villain in that. Just the aggressor. Recall that he killed in the first three films in that series, often deliberately. Wanting to kill the man who killed his parents and now his bride to be, is in keeping with that modus operandi.
    (A) The fact that he killed people in the Burton films doesn't change the fact that it was out of character for him to do so. (B) It was my understanding that the Batman vs. Superman film wouldn't have followed the continuity of the Burton films. (C) There's a difference between wanting to do something and actually trying to do it. I don't doubt that there have been plenty of times in the comics he wanted to kill the Joker, but he's refrained from acting on that desire because it goes against his moral code.

    And I don't really have a big problem with him killing in the heat of battle or to protect lives. But even in the context of the Burton films, his going off on a planned mission for the specific purpose of committing murder is outside the character's moral boundaries.
    Last edited by kalorama; 02-10-2013 at 02:41 PM.

  2. #137
    Elder Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    16,884

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maskedavenger View Post
    In response to Kalorama :
    -Of course its speculation the majority of this TV/ Film thread is speculation "with a hint of fortune telling thrown in". Why even respond to these threads if your objection to my "speculations" of why the JLU would be visually problematic in a live action movie is that my words are "pure speculation"...That is pretty obvious...in fact this whole thread might be pure nonsense due to the fact that the script being discarded is based on a "rumor".
    I have no objection to speculation. It's speculation with no underpinning of provable logic presented as if it has some basis in fact that I find problematic.

    Your entire "argument" presumes that Warner Bros. can't/won't make the kind of changes necessary to make the JLA work on screen. There's zero logic to that assumption and no fact to back it up, but you repeatedly talk as if there is.

  3. #138
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legato View Post
    If you find the thread pointless then why continue posting here?
    I was pointing out the irony of Kalorama identifying/criticing my point of view as speculative and unfounded yet the topic of the thread, itself, is based on a unfounded speculative rumor.

  4. #139
    Observer Vibranium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    19,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kalorama View Post
    I have no objection to speculation. It's speculation with no underpinning of provable logic presented as if it has some basis in fact that I find problematic.

    Your entire "argument" presumes that Warner Bros. can't/won't make the kind of changes necessary to make the JLA work on screen. There's zero logic to that assumption and no fact to back it up, but you repeatedly talk as if there is.
    I think the issue is anyone at WB actually giving a shit
    Support your local roller derby league

  5. #140
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kalorama View Post
    I have no objection to speculation. It's speculation with no underpinning of provable logic presented as if it has some basis in fact that I find problematic.

    Your entire "argument" presumes that Warner Bros. can't/won't make the kind of changes necessary to make the JLA work on screen. There's zero logic to that assumption and no fact to back it up, but you repeatedly talk as if there is.
    My entire argument also assumes that the "problems" I am stating are problems(visuals/costumes/daytime setting) are even problems in the first place....they may not be at all. It is my opinion...of course I could wait until official casting of concept art is released to form an opinion with evidence but I imagine you nor I will be alive when that happens...and so it will my opinion of the possible problems about this movie's possible creation will continue to be possibly prophetic based on a phantom movie that will possibly never come to fruition.

  6. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vibranium View Post
    I think the issue is anyone at WB actually giving a shit
    Yeah that seems about right. Fox went out and hired Mark Millar to be a consultant on their properties, I don't see why Warner Bros. cant do something similar.

  7. #142
    Elder Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    16,884

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maskedavenger View Post
    My entire argument also assumes that the "problems" I am stating are problems(visuals/costumes/daytime setting) are even problems in the first place
    Exactly my point. You're assuming they're problems when (A) there's no reasonable, logical, or evidentiary basis for such an assumption and (B) there's plenty of evidence that they aren't actually problems at all (i.e., a multitude of existing superhero films that addressed the very "problems" you're complaining about). You're chicken little screaming that the sky is falling when it's actually a nice sunny day.

  8. #143
    Elder Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    16,884

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vibranium View Post
    I think the issue is anyone at WB actually giving a shit
    They give a shit about making money, so they'll give a shit about making a movie that gives them the best chance to make lots of money.

  9. #144
    Senior Member Vidocq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kalorama View Post
    They give a shit about making money, so they'll give a shit about making a movie that gives them the best chance to make lots of money.
    Sure, but when you go in with that mentality you end up with The Green Lantern. That movie was designed to make money, even had a Hot Wheels commercial in the middle of it, and the audience can see right through that. You have to, even as a producer, to give a shit about the property you are working on, at least a little. No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader, as they say.
    ...And does Mr. Goddanm Batman says so much as ''Thanks''? OF COURSE not. That'd hardly be GRIM AND GRITTY, would it?

    The jerk...

    -DKU's Jim Gordon.

  10. #145
    Elder Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    16,884

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vidocq View Post
    Sure, but when you go in with that mentality you end up with The Green Lantern. That movie was designed to make money, even had a Hot Wheels commercial in the middle of it, and the audience can see right through that.
    Which is exactly why I would expect them to avoid the same mistakes they made with Green Lantern.

    And FWIW every big budget summer blockbuster is designed to make money.

  11. #146
    Senior Member SephirothDZX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,909

    Default

    They need to sit down, look at Man of Steel, see if it has any legs to it and then ask Bruce Timm to build a DC universe with it.

    If they rush out a JLA movie for 2015 it's just going to look like they're ripping off Avengers, especially if there's no build up to it.
    Eh, Comics is a pretty cool guy...

  12. #147

    Default

    The hitch for WB is that any and all of their upcoming DC movies would be part of the WB slate of movies for the year. DC Studios needs to be more of an autonomous entity, like Marvel, or WB needs to license out some DC properties to other studios. Fox and Sony both managed to get/stay in the superhero game w/ Marvel's big guns. Universal and Viacom most likely would like to get back into the superhero game and would be willing to shell out the costs for the lion's share of the profits. All WB would have to do is collect the licensing fees and use that money to offset the costs of a JLA series of movies. DC has plenty of sub-universes WB could license out w/o diminishing its in-house JL brand: The Charelton characters, The Fawcett chararcters, the Wildstorm and Milestone universes.

    Also having a creative overseer like Fox has with Mark Millar wouldn't be a bad idea, either... just so long as it's NOT Geoff Johns.
    "Don't Reboot The Bat!" Keep Going!
    MoS is a PoS.
    Twitter
    The Facebook

  13. #148
    Observer Vibranium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    19,266

    Default

    DC Studios needs to be more of an autonomous entity, like Marvel, or WB needs to license out some DC properties to other studios.
    again

    this cannot happen because they are wholly owned by Time Warner
    Support your local roller derby league

  14. #149
    BANNED Phil Clark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Charles, Mo
    Posts
    5,114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kalorama View Post
    Which is exactly why I would expect them to avoid the same mistakes they made with Green Lantern.

    And FWIW every big budget summer blockbuster is designed to make money.
    It has long been my theory and opinion that you cannot design a film to appeal to what you think people want. If you try to make that kind of movie, the majority of the time you will end up with a heartless, soul-less empty shell of a movie that will not succeed. Instead, the only way to make a good movie that people will latch onto is to NOT make the movie that you think everyone wants to see, but instead make the movie that YOU would want to see, and then you hope that people flock to it.

    This theory was partly validated by last Seasons "Face Off" competition. The woman that won the whole thing was initially kicked off. When she had the chance to come back she kicked ass all the way to the finish line. The reason for her change was in her working methodology. She actually said that when she got kicked off she was trying to do makeups that she thought the judges wanted to see. When she came back she scrapped that idea and did what SHE wanted to do, and the Judges loved it because they could see not only the technique was better but so were the concepts. It is EXACTLY the same thing with making movies.

  15. #150
    BANNED Phil Clark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Charles, Mo
    Posts
    5,114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pauly T View Post
    The hitch for WB is that any and all of their upcoming DC movies would be part of the WB slate of movies for the year. DC Studios needs to be more of an autonomous entity, like Marvel, or WB needs to license out some DC properties to other studios.
    Except that Marvel would love to have those licensed properties back under their direct control. Those characters being at Sony and Fox are severely limiting what Marvel could achieve if they had full access to all their characters. That is the one small glitch in the way Marvel is doing things right now. And that glitch was the impetus for Marvels creating their own studio, to better control their characters fates in the Movies. And it has worked pretty well. And as time goes by they are just likely going to get more characters back, leading to better and more exciting movies.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •