RUMOR: Warner Bros. Scraps Beall's "Justice League" Script

[Sonofspam]

And therein lies the rub. There is NO magic formula for making a blockbuster. If there was a "follow these steps and produce a major blockbuster" formula, then everyone would be doing it. You know why certain producers, directors, etc... keep making blockbusters?

Because they follow their hearts and have the clout not to cave to Studio Suits input.

Raimi was doing very well with Spider-man. But then the third one came along and instead of letting him do what he had done before, what had worked for him so far, they instead ramrodded Venom down his throat. The result, the absolute worst of all the Raimi Spider-Man films.

Learn the lesson Hollywood Execs. Hire someone with vision and the balls to pull off good films, then leave them the fuck alone so they can do the job you hired them to do, and make you tons of money.

Strangely enough the Venom part was probably the best parts of the movie and everything else stunk to high heaven.

[cliffhanger]

But the point is that while MOST blockbuster have multiple things in common, you can have five films that have all those elements and only one of them will be a blockbuster. So as I have said several times... there is no formula for building a blockbuster. Your best chance of success is like I suggested... make the movie that YOU want to see, and then just wait and see if people flock to it. If you don't love it, it sure as hell is going to show in the work and the quality of the film.

And saying all blockbusters have multiple things in common is like saying all cars have multiple things in common. True, but it doesn't mean they will be the same quality or be as popular as each other.

Ah well, I disagree. I don't think you can find five movies with the elements of a said blockbuster and only find one that works. The movies that possess those workable elements 9 times out of 10 become blockbusters. It's more than loving it and making a movie you want to see. It's giving the people what they want to see.

The car analogy is interesting but still kind of broad. All luxury cars have things in common that make them luxury cars and separate them from cars that are lemons.

[Phil Clark]

But there is this to consider that makes my position the more likely. Hollywood is a business. If there is a magic formula for making blockbusters that draw HUGE box office numbers, then every summer we would have like 10 movies that bring in 1.5 billion or more. But we don't get that. We get only one of those every couple of years. Most bring in a more modest 150-300 million. Considering some of those movies cost 150-200 million to make... they are branded failures.

It is pretty obvious that all big blockbusters have things in common. But what makes a true blockbuster are the intangibles. The heart that goes into it, characters that strike a chord with the audience, the formulaic film that puts an unexpected twist on the formula. People know an empty, lifeless attempt to just make money on a trend and they tend to avoid those films due to word of mouth.

And there are the occasional films that should be blockbusters, but don't get the proper advertising (John Carter comes to mind).

It all points to the fact that there is no golden list of things that if you do them will Guarantee a blockbuster.

[cliffhanger]

But there is this to consider that makes my position the more likely. Hollywood is a business. If there is a magic formula for making blockbusters that draw HUGE box office numbers, then every summer we would have like 10 movies that bring in 1.5 billion or more. But we don't get that. We get only one of those every couple of years. Most bring in a more modest 150-300 million. Considering some of those movies cost 150-200 million to make... they are branded failures.

It is pretty obvious that all big blockbusters have things in common. But what makes a true blockbuster are the intangibles. The heart that goes into it, characters that strike a chord with the audience, the formulaic film that puts an unexpected twist on the formula. People know an empty, lifeless attempt to just make money on a trend and they tend to avoid those films due to word of mouth.

And there are the occasional films that should be blockbusters, but don't get the proper advertising (John Carter comes to mind).

It all points to the fact that there is no golden list of things that if you do them will Guarantee a blockbuster.

Well, I see your point. I mean the DC movie makers seem downright clueless on how to strike a chord with audiences. Outside of Batman their recent efforts have been disasters. If anyone could screw up a JL movie it would be them. And Avengers may have already stolen their thunder. So I'm actually starting to see why they are so hesitant. It seems like a no-brainer homerun but looking at their track record...maybe they should just be happy if Man of Steel does good.

[Phil Clark]

It doesn't help matters that even hard core comics fans have a really hard time separating all the different versions of DC characters as they relate to other universes and other versions of the characters. That confusion is multiplied by the execs trying to put things together, or so it seems. And which versions of characters do you use?

It seems to come down to the fundamental difference between Marvel and DC. DC started off with fictional locations instead of real locations, and all their heros seemed to be in different realities. They often didn't interact.

Marvel was always set in the "real" world, and from day one their heroes interacted, even if in a small way (Spiderman swinging in the background of a conversational page between the Thing and Alicia). So fitting Marvel characters together works easily because they have always been that way in the comics, and the people in charge often are the comics people, or at least grew up with the comics.

DC's fitting things together is harder to do. They have to first create Gotham and Smallville, and Star City and Metropolis as if they exist in the same world. Then they can do JLA. They need a 5 year plan, not a knee jerk response to Marvel's success.

[DennyK]

It doesn't help matters that even hard core comics fans have a really hard time separating all the different versions of DC characters as they relate to other universes and other versions of the characters. That confusion is multiplied by the execs trying to put things together, or so it seems. And which versions of characters do you use?

It seems to come down to the fundamental difference between Marvel and DC. DC started off with fictional locations instead of real locations, and all their heros seemed to be in different realities. They often didn't interact.

Marvel was always set in the "real" world, and from day one their heroes interacted, even if in a small way (Spiderman swinging in the background of a conversational page between the Thing and Alicia). So fitting Marvel characters together works easily because they have always been that way in the comics, and the people in charge often are the comics people, or at least grew up with the comics.

DC's fitting things together is harder to do. They have to first create Gotham and Smallville, and Star City and Metropolis as if they exist in the same world. Then they can do JLA. They need a 5 year plan, not a knee jerk response to Marvel's success.

Very very well put and quoted for truth

[SephirothDZX]

It doesn't help matters that even hard core comics fans have a really hard time separating all the different versions of DC characters as they relate to other universes and other versions of the characters. That confusion is multiplied by the execs trying to put things together, or so it seems. And which versions of characters do you use?

It seems to come down to the fundamental difference between Marvel and DC. DC started off with fictional locations instead of real locations, and all their heros seemed to be in different realities. They often didn't interact.

Marvel was always set in the "real" world, and from day one their heroes interacted, even if in a small way (Spiderman swinging in the background of a conversational page between the Thing and Alicia). So fitting Marvel characters together works easily because they have always been that way in the comics, and the people in charge often are the comics people, or at least grew up with the comics.

DC's fitting things together is harder to do. They have to first create Gotham and Smallville, and Star City and Metropolis as if they exist in the same world. Then they can do JLA. They need a 5 year plan, not a knee jerk response to Marvel's success.

Heh, I was actually talking to a friend of mine about this very thing a week or two ago. I'd love to see an official map of the DC United States just to see where all of the major cities are in relation to their real life counterparts, and see if there's any explanation as to why Smallville, Kansas is a hop-skip-jump away from Metropolis/New York

[Legato]

Heh, I was actually talking to a friend of mine about this very thing a week or two ago. I'd love to see an official map of the DC United States just to see where all of the major cities are in relation to their real life counterparts, and see if there's any explanation as to why Smallville, Kansas is a hop-skip-jump away from Metropolis/New York

I usually assumed Metropolis was just a larger part of Kansas, that and it's too clean to be NY.

[MRMIRACLE]

Except that Marvel would love to have those licensed properties back under their direct control ... was the impetus for Marvels creating their own studio, to better control their characters fates in the Movies. And it has worked pretty well.

Agreed.

Those characters being at Sony and Fox are severely limiting what Marvel could achieve if they had full access to all their characters.

Not so sure about this one. As it stands, Marvel's able to put a tight, reasonably cohesive array of characters, plots and situations on the screen. This makes for good, adventurous movies, that allow for plenty of action and some good character moments for each role. It could descend into an indecipherable noise if all the characters were available, and it would be too much to ask of any studio exec to restrain themselves from putting as much of the catalog on screen as possible if they could get at them all.

[MRMIRACLE]

Heh, I was actually talking to a friend of mine about this very thing a week or two ago. I'd love to see an official map of the DC United States just to see where all of the major cities are in relation to their real life counterparts, and see if there's any explanation as to why Smallville, Kansas is a hop-skip-jump away from Metropolis/New York

Not official, but ... http://www.karridian.net/dcatlas.html

[Phil Clark]

As it stands, Marvel's able to put a tight, reasonably cohesive array of characters, plots and situations on the screen. This makes for good, adventurous movies, that allow for plenty of action and some good character moments for each role.

I agree.

It could descend into an indecipherable noise if all the characters were available, and it would be too much to ask of any studio exec to restrain themselves from putting as much of the catalog on screen as possible if they could get at them all.

Here is where I disagree. I think you may not be giving Fiege and the others in control of Marvel enough credit here. They are smart, and are working to not do too much to quickly. They have very specific plans for each arc and ideas for what to do with the next one. They aren't planning on move ahead, but one "event" ahead. And each event ties into 3-5 other buildup movies.

The reason I say that not having those other properties severely limits what Marvel Movies can achieve is that as time goes on they will start to run out of villains and situations that warrant bringing the group of heroes together. In the comics the heroes not only combat major villains, but groups of minor villains that together pose a significant threat. Doom is one of the Major Villains that they simply cannot use right now because Marvel doesn't have the movie rights to the Fantastic Four and Doom. They also don't have Galactus. Or the Silver surfer. Or Skrulls. So we have already seen the need to improvise to accommodate those limitations.

The comics also have villains going up against other heroes, either one on one or in groups. Something Marvel is limited in doing at the moment due to not holding the rights to the characters.

Having them back would allow Marvel to mix and match and use the characters when needed, or more accurately when the story calls for it. Marvel has never just thrown all their characters together willy nilly. It would be VERY cool if they could do a Galactus/FF/Avengers major event. The end of the world is coming, and it has a name... GALACTUS!

[Legato]

On the plus side for Marvel these kind of drawbacks could inspire them to create original villains for the movie universe.

[Mat001]

Still doesn't equate to Batman blowing up a factory full of people.

There were at least a dozen of the Joker's men, not to mention technicians that were running the plant. Mixing up more Smilex gas. You're reaching.

It doesn't help matters that even hard core comics fans have a really hard time separating all the different versions of DC characters as they relate to other universes and other versions of the characters. That confusion is multiplied by the execs trying to put things together, or so it seems. And which versions of characters do you use?

No, the uptight fan get pissed off because it isn't like in the comics. They can separate what's what.

It seems to come down to the fundamental difference between Marvel and DC. DC started off with fictional locations instead of real locations, and all their heros seemed to be in different realities. They often didn't interact.

Marvel was always set in the "real" world, and from day one their heroes interacted, even if in a small way (Spiderman swinging in the background of a conversational page between the Thing and Alicia). So fitting Marvel characters together works easily because they have always been that way in the comics, and the people in charge often are the comics people, or at least grew up with the comics.

DC's fitting things together is harder to do. They have to first create Gotham and Smallville, and Star City and Metropolis as if they exist in the same world. Then they can do JLA. They need a 5 year plan, not a knee jerk response to Marvel's success.

That's a big load of crap. Audiences are aware that even in movies that are more "real world" than not, that fake towns and cities are used in place of real ones. It is no more difficult to establish Metropolis and Gotham in the US, than it is New York City and Los Angeles.

Heh, I was actually talking to a friend of mine about this very thing a week or two ago. I'd love to see an official map of the DC United States just to see where all of the major cities are in relation to their real life counterparts, and see if there's any explanation as to why Smallville, Kansas is a hop-skip-jump away from Metropolis/New York

It was only that way in "Smallville" since the showrunners wanted to have the characters going back and forth between the two. In the other media, it's still a long ways out. And for a guy that can travel across the country in four minutes at normal speed, without really pushing himself, it's not an issue at all. Anyway, it was established in the comics that the DC Earth is much larger than the Marvel Earth and Earth-Prime which is supposed to be our reality. This accounts for the fictional cities and island nations.

Here is where I disagree. I think you may not be giving Fiege and the others in control of Marvel enough credit here. They are smart, and are working to not do too much to quickly. They have very specific plans for each arc and ideas for what to do with the next one. They aren't planning on move ahead, but one "event" ahead. And each event ties into 3-5 other buildup movies.

Fiege was involved quite a bit in the shaping of the first wave of films. A lot of "Iron Man 2" and "Incredible Hulk" were edited because Marvel wanted more action and more stuff that tied the mythologies together. That's why Favreau didn't return for "Iron Man 3", because he didn't like compromising his story for "The Avengers" and why Norton was so vocal about "The Incredible Hulk" before it was released. And ultimately why he didn't return for "The Avengers". Even Whedon said that before he had the opportunity to ask Fiege about replacing Norton with Rufflao, Fiege was the one who brought the subject up first. Then you had Rourke who had asked Favreau to make sure that Vanko wasn't one dimensional when he agreed to do "Iron Man 2" and so they crafted a complex take on the character and a lot of it was dropped because of the execs.

Even Fiege isn't immune to micromanaging.

[Vibranium]

Even Fiege isn't immune to micromanaging.

and that will always be the case when you aren't the one cutting the checks

the good news is that Disney stays out of the way as long as you're producing

[kalorama]

It doesn't help matters that even hard core comics fans have a really hard time separating all the different versions of DC characters as they relate to other universes and other versions of the characters. That confusion is multiplied by the execs trying to put things together, or so it seems. And which versions of characters do you use?

It seems to come down to the fundamental difference between Marvel and DC. DC started off with fictional locations instead of real locations, and all their heros seemed to be in different realities. They often didn't interact.

Marvel was always set in the "real" world, and from day one their heroes interacted, even if in a small way (Spiderman swinging in the background of a conversational page between the Thing and Alicia). So fitting Marvel characters together works easily because they have always been that way in the comics, and the people in charge often are the comics people, or at least grew up with the comics.

DC's fitting things together is harder to do. They have to first create Gotham and Smallville, and Star City and Metropolis as if they exist in the same world. Then they can do JLA. They need a 5 year plan, not a knee jerk response to Marvel's success.

None of that stuff is actually an impediment to making a good movie based on DC characters because none of that stuff matters even a little bit to the average moviegoer who doesn't read DC superhero comics. They not only don't care but, because they don't read the comics, they most likely aren't even aware of it. It's a nonissue for the vast majority of the potential audience.