Non-Marvel and DC Comic Books on Film

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
dx23
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Puerto Rico

#76 Post by dx23 » Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:46 am

patrick wrote:From Variety's Bags & Boards blog:
"Justice League" flick one step closer ...

WB's plans for a "Justice League" movie reached a major milestone last week when writers Kieran and Michele Mulroney turned in a first-draft screenplay that Variety's Pam McClintock says had "Warner Bros. suits actually smiling."

Husband-and-wife duo picked up the assignment earlier this year; deal was announced around the time of the New York Comic-Con.

The next big question for the studio will be whether to go ahead with the pic before Bryan Singer's planned sequel to "Superman Returns," which is due in 2009 but reportedly has no script or start date yet set. The casting question also hangs heavily in the air: Should Christian Bale, currently shooting Batman pic "The Dark Knight," and Singer's Man of Steel Brandon Routh reprise their roles in a "JL" flick? Would recasting Batman and Superman with different actors give fans and the press too much to pick on?

Only time will tell which way the studio goes, though they'd better start thinking up some answers for the thousands of fans who even now are sharpening their queries for next month's trip to San Diego.
This sounds like a terrible idea on so many levels, and I think Marvel is smart not to go ahead with an Avengers movie when most of the franchises they'd be bringing together aren't even off the ground yet. A Justice League movie would have the the fact that all the DC franchises are under the WB roof going for it, but I doubt Singer and Nolan are going to want Warner Bros mandating things in their own films to set up the JLA film. And I can't really see Christian Bale doing something like this.
I also agree that this is a terrible idea. When you have too many characters, you need time to develop them so the audience care about the material. Otherwise you get half-assed storylines with rushed action and story development. Why doesn't Hollywood understand that superheroe teams are betted suited for TV series?

DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#77 Post by DrewReiber » Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:49 am

patrick wrote:This sounds like a terrible idea on so many levels,
The Justice League hype is 90% B.S. and is being spread by a producer attached to the project. The script was pumped out very quickly by an actor and his wife whose biggest writing credits are uncredited re-writes on Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Whoever this producer is, he/she is trying to get enough press in some ridiculously futile attempt to sway Warner into putting the film on the fasttrack and start giving them control of characters like Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.

The Superman and Batman franchises are moving full-steam ahead and, at the moment, both Nolan and Singer are loyal to the studio and vice versa. Joel Silver doesn't have much going on with Wonder Woman, but it's not that likely he'll lose the character to another producer until more of his projects belly flop. I just can't stress enough how this Justice League stuff is little more than a PR war and the press is being easily manipulated.
And I can't really see Christian Bale doing something like this.
You're right, he wouldn't and Warner knows this. The most likely scenario for getting a Justice League feature off the ground is if they do a number of critical re-writes over the next few years and drop their hopes of using any of the big three (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman). They would still be competing with a few other producers including David Goyer and Shawn Levy for Green Arrow and The Flash, but they would have a better chance at securing at least some recognizable League characters.

DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#78 Post by DrewReiber » Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:52 am

timothy.newsum wrote:Oh, good... I was starting to get a little panicked – the thought of a movie industry over-obsessed with comics and a comics industry over-obsessed with movies was making me nauseous and dizzy.
Oh, that's going to happen anyway. Sorry. There are far more comicbook-related features lined up for 2008-2009 than you posted. It's just that half the ones you noticed had stalled.
Still, a Popbot movie actually suggests the potential for innovative filmmaking as the books themselves have particularly atypical narratives (but I can't imagine how they'll stay true to the source material without getting an NC-17 rating).
I lost track of the Popbot movie. I will have to research that to see if it's still happening.
dx23 wrote:I also agree that this is a terrible idea. When you have too many characters, you need time to develop them so the audience care about the material. Otherwise you get half-assed storylines with rushed action and story development.
Agreed. I can only imagine how bad that Justice League script is.
Why doesn't Hollywood understand that superheroe teams are betted suited for TV series?
That's not how studios like Warner Bros work. A producer usually develops the property on their own and then petitions the studio for a greenlight. Whether it's a feature or a show is decided by that producer during that time. Also, the choice over a show or movie can be influenced by the last media incarnation of the property. If you look at a character like Superman, it moves back and forth between TV and film. Teen Titans was most recently a Cartoon Network series and is now being worked into both animated and live-action features.

Cinesimilitude
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:43 am

#79 Post by Cinesimilitude » Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:20 am

nothing will ever touch "The Phantom". Still my favorite superhero/comic book movie.

THX1378
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:35 am
Location: Fresno, CA

#80 Post by THX1378 » Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:28 pm

Maybe we have different ideas of what consititutes a good Superman movie, but I do think it's safe to assume you're going to like the sequel more.
My problem with Returns was more along the line of that it didn't have the magic that the first two seemed to have going for it. It wasn't that bad, it could have been Superman 3 or 4 bad, it just live up to the hype. I guess what I'm saying is that it felt empty as far as a Superman film goes. As far as a Justice League film goes, I say don't do it. It works well as a cartoon, but I can't see it working well for a live action film. Oh and add to that list Watchmen, which I'm thinking by the time Comic Con rolls around will have some set in stone casting at last.

User avatar
exte
~_~
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#81 Post by exte » Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:36 pm

Yeah, no Christopher Reeve-caliber actor to play Superman. Whoever that was, I can't blame him, he just wasn't as iconic or as warm as Chris...

DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#82 Post by DrewReiber » Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:28 pm

THX1378 wrote:My problem with Returns was more along the line of that it didn't have the magic that the first two seemed to have going for it.
Fair enough. I feel kinda bad for them, though, considering that a direct sequel meant being compared to a feature is seen as the Citizen Kane of it's genre. Even frickin' Geoffrey "2001" Unsworth was there to give every shot this romantic haze so you felt you were in a glowing world of fantasy.
It wasn't that bad, it could have been Superman 3 or 4 bad, it just live up to the hype.
I agree, it didn't.
I guess what I'm saying is that it felt empty as far as a Superman film goes.
Yeah, I gotcha. I just think I got more out of what they were trying to do than some. Though I was surprised at the reaction from most women I know or those I saw talking just after the movie. Personally, I think they did a decent job of putting the drama in but forgot the action. Again, I can't stress enough how little time they had to prepare the movie and how the script was made up last minute when McG dropped out. Knowing how most people responded to X2, and assuming you like Singer's X-Men work, I think The Man of Steel will give you more of what you were hoping for the first time around.
Oh and add to that list Watchmen, which I'm thinking by the time Comic Con rolls around will have some set in stone casting at last.
If you guys want, I can do a real list here soon that will be titles and dates only. I'm working on a much more comprehensive one for Silver Bullet Comicbooks, so I might just post a link to that one later. It will be pretty thorough and include a number of cast/crew details for each project.

Btw, I am *NOT* looking forward to Watchmen. Now that I've seen the previous David Hayter script, I don't know if the Paul Greengrass incarnation would have been great, but I'm sure it would have been better than how this version is shaping up.

patrick
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Philadelphia

#83 Post by patrick » Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:48 pm

I would have hope for The Man of Steel if it wasn't for the fact that they saddled the franchise with Superman and Lois Lane having a kid - something that they've never even dared to do in the comics (OK, they do have an adopted child in current continuity, but I think that's kind of different). It just felt like a really unnecessary choice, as well as a huge deviation from the comics. Singer having to use the kid in The Man of Steel kind of kills any anticipation I have for it.

DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#84 Post by DrewReiber » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:15 pm

patrick wrote:Singer having to use the kid in The Man of Steel kind of kills any anticipation I have for it.
Ok, you don't like how it deviated too much from what you liked in the comics, but aren't you kind of assuming they're automatically going to do something bad with it?

And just to be fair, the first movie also ignored comics continuity in favor of something closer to the television series. For whatever reason, Superman comics continuity has always been dictated by the media interpretations (radio, animated, tv, movies, etc).

patrick
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Philadelphia

#85 Post by patrick » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:24 pm

I'm actually not really much of a Superman fan, and I'm all for writers and directors making the changes necessary to adapt comics to movies (or TV), I just felt that the kid was totally unnecessary. Introducing Superman's son into the mix definitely changes the dynamic of, well, pretty much everything. That's why comic writers rarely have their characters have kids.

I like Singer enough to check out the next one, but I really question where he and the other people involved with this franchise are going. Like I said before, it's a lot to saddle a newly reborn franchise with, and honestly I wish that they had waited a movie or two to reestablish the relationship between Superman/Clark Kent and his supporting cast before throwing the kid into the mix.

THX1378
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:35 am
Location: Fresno, CA

#86 Post by THX1378 » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:41 pm

Knowing how most people responded to X2, and assuming you like Singer's X-Men work, I think The Man of Steel will give you more of what you were hoping for the first time around.
See, I didn't like the first X-Men film that much. It felt like a set up film that lead up to nothing. To me it was like here is what you need to know, wait for the second film because thats where the payoff is going to be. I felt the same way with the first Spiderman film. I'm not looking forward to the Watchmen film also. I've talked before on the forum that the only way that this could work and make everyone happy would be to do it as a miniseries for HBO or Showtime.

patrick
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Philadelphia

#87 Post by patrick » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:48 pm

I just think that Watchmen is so grounded in the medium itself through its metatextual elements that the idea of turning it into a movie or a miniseries is foolish. It's making a movie about a comic that's about comics, and Snyder's ideas about filming all the Black Freighter sequences just strikes me as fundamentally misguided, like he can only see things on a surface level (which, given the films he's made, is probably true). Not to be hyperbolic, but it's almost like adapting Ulysses into a movie. There's no way what's on the page can be transferred to the screen without taking away a lot (or even all) of what makes it so special.

THX1378
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:35 am
Location: Fresno, CA

#88 Post by THX1378 » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:57 pm

Not to be hyperbolic, but it's almost like adapting Ulysses into a movie. There's no way what's on the page can be transferred to the screen without taking away a lot (or even all) of what makes it so special.
Thats very true. There is really no right way to do Watchmen and not piss someone off. It's one of the most beloved comics, and one of the greatest in history, if not the greatest.

DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#89 Post by DrewReiber » Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:12 pm

patrick wrote:I really question where he and the other people involved with this franchise are going. Like I said before, it's a lot to saddle a newly reborn franchise with
Well, there's no harm in questioning it, but I'd rather hear you're giving it a chance than let the *potential* of a bad direction kill all your interest completely.
honestly I wish that they had waited a movie or two to reestablish the relationship between Superman/Clark Kent and his supporting cast before throwing the kid into the mix.
I'm sure there are many who agree with you. I grew up on the pre-existing films and I was so happy to hear they were just going to continue everything as if 3 & 4 never happened. I hate it when studios pointlessly restart a franchise just so they can regurgitate the same stories over again. I'm for the presence of the child for those reasons, as it purposely forces the oncoming creative teams to do something new.

There are already far too many "is he going to reveal his identity to her" comicbook movie melodramas out there and it sure doesn't help that the Spider-Man franchise is so derivative of Superman. It also puts Superman in a place that is unique to the genre, where he must take responsibility for his actions in a series where all he ever did was reverse time or give somebody a lobotomy with his telepathy (wtf?!?).

I say, just take a look at what they end up doing with Steel before you write it off. That's all.
THX1378 wrote:See, I didn't like the first X-Men film that much. It felt like a set up film that lead up to nothing. To me it was like here is what you need to know, wait for the second film because thats where the payoff is going to be. I felt the same way with the first Spiderman film.
This is where my obsessive knowledge of comicbook filmmaking comes handy. I'm kind of predisposed to giving first films a break because I know how development works. Superman: The Movie, X-Men and Spider-Man all suffered tremendously due to painfully terrible first drafts and early directions that were detrimental to the adaptation. In every case, the director came on last minute with a script that was not at all filmmable and they had to bring their own people in to save the day.

Superman: The Movie had the Newmans, X-Men had Ed Solomon and Spider-Man had David Koepp (he did *not* write the final draft). In X-Men's case, the did some of the re-writing himself while dealing with far too many characters (several were dropped last minute). It was only David Hayter's last second draft, delivered just a weeks before production, that saved the film. Unlike Superman or Spider-Man, Fox gave Singer very little time to shoot and a budget capped at $75 million. The final edit was a rushjob that they almost redid entirely in 2003 and a lot of scenes and fx had to be dropped for lack of time or money.

Being aware of the production restrictions and the pre-shooting draft of the script, my expectations were rock bottom. I was so surprised and impressed by what they turned out that my only remaining qualm was the cliffhanger ending. Still, Singer turned around with a far more impressive sequel which included an ending and fight scenes that he basically improvised. This on top of the fact that he really did preplan and envision a trilogy from the start. Knowing how much higher they aimed for with X2 (than what they got) and what X3 might have been, I have a lot more faith in where the Superman franchise is going than some might have.

Anyway, long story short... X-Men and Spider-Man were a whole lot better than they might have been thanks to the talent of the director's and their last minute rewrites.
I'm not looking forward to the Watchmen film also. I've talked before on the forum that the only way that this could work and make everyone happy would be to do it as a miniseries for HBO or Showtime.
Unfortunately, Warner just doesn't think like that. It's why they have so many misses compared to Marvel Studios, because they don't have people whose sole job is to mind the properties as their first priority. All these guys care about is getting the movie financed and released. The proposal on the table is for a feature film and nobody in high management at the studio is going to sit those producers down and tell them it would make more sense to be a mini-series. All they know is that the director of 300 wants to do another comicbook movie and this time the material is world famous.

Remember, this is the same studio that just gave the keys to Robin back to the man who wrote Batman & Robin. Akiva Goldsman gets comicbook movies made, and that's all they can understand.

THX1378
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:35 am
Location: Fresno, CA

#90 Post by THX1378 » Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:06 am

I have a lot more faith in where the Superman franchise is going than some might have.
I have some faith that the next one will be a great film. But how do you explain how Batman Begins turned out so good? Everyone including myself thought it was just going to be ok, that we were just going to rehash the how Batman became Batman story. And then we saw it and everyone was blown away by the fact that for the first time, they got Batman right in a film. I think it deepens first off if the director gets the comic first off. Same goes for the screenwriters. I know that the first film has to be the set up for the next film, but look at Batman Begins. The set up was perfect and it didn't overstep itself at all. First 40 minutes set up everything you needed to know to get to the next part of the film and move on to bigger and better things. I'll take it that most of the problems with X-Men or Spiderman had to deal with the screenplay and last minute reworkings, but it doesn't seem like it's just that problem to me.

DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#91 Post by DrewReiber » Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:28 pm

THX1378 wrote:But how do you explain how Batman Begins turned out so good?
Easy. Warner Bros had produced 4 Batman features already and the last one hurt them so bad they now knew what *not* to do. After shutting down development of another Schumacher sequel (with Scarecrow) and the Bruce Wayne TV series (that morphed into Smallville), they actively sought out filmmakers and writers who would give them the polar opposite approach to Batman & Robin. They didn't just go after filmmakers either, bringing in comicbook talent like Grant Morrison to pitch their own take on a new script based on his Arkham Asylum credits.

When they finally locked down Darren Aaronofsky and Frank Miller, the producers became enamored with the idea of a Year One adaptation because the realistic setting and dark tone was easy for them to identify as the direction to take. Unfortunately, the Year One script made a couple of departures involving Batman's origin and a third of the story followed Catwoman. By the time Spider-Man broke domestic box office figures in 2002, Warner decided they weren't going to commit to Aaronofsky/Miller script and instead opted to produce Catwoman (I know, I know...). Greenlighting the Halle Berry film put the kibosh on the existing Batman screenplay and they had to start searching for a new director.

When they came to Christopher Nolan, they already had enough of an idea of where they wanted to go that everyone could get on the same page. Nolan also wanted to continue developing a Year One story, but felt they needed a screenwriter with the credibility to make the adaptation work. He personally asked David Goyer to join the production and from there they were able to begin injecting more original comic material from writers like Dennis O'Neil and Jeph Loeb. Loeb was so heavily requested by fans of the Batman franchise that a petition already been sent to Warner in favor of bringing him on to do the screenplay.

So that's the story. The producers at Warner had to get away from the Schumacher/Goldsman direction so they committed themselves to using writers and Batman material that were publicly acknowledged as the best recent comics had to offer. That and a director who was known for serious and stylistic dramas that could further ground the next incarnation of the franchise in a believable reality. Again, none of this would have happened if they hadn't already produced so many features and found themselves so far from a previously successful track. That's completely different from Spider-Man and X-Men.
I'll take it that most of the problems with X-Men or Spiderman had to deal with the screenplay and last minute reworkings, but it doesn't seem like it's just that problem to me.
I think you should read the original drafts and look up the stories behind the productions before making that call.

patrick
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Philadelphia

#92 Post by patrick » Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:03 pm

Man, I try not to get all fanboyish on here, but an Arkham Asylum movie would be so fucking cool if handled by the right people.

User avatar
Awesome Welles
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:02 am
Location: London

#93 Post by Awesome Welles » Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:02 am

I don't know if it has already been discussed but I recently took some time out to relax my brain (a lot) and watched Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer, I did the same with the first. I put myself in the mindset of an eight year old (I guess I do this because I have a fondness for the characters). I have to say I did quite enjoy the first. Yes it was predictable, yes the acting wasn't good, but really, this is not adult entertainment stuff, Fantastic 4 is obviously a children's film, it doesn't have the darkness of Batman or even Spiderman but yet doesn't quite hit home like Superman. But to an eight year old this was probably great.

In the case of F4:ROTSS it is the exact same deal, the plot is very predictable, you could put a stopwatch on the classic three act structure. But what I found most interesting about this film was the comment on celebrityism and how it has gotten out of control. The film begins with Reed and Susan's wedding, they are plagued by the media and their wedding is the discussion in the tabloids and news. It's an interesting observation on celebrityism, how anyone in the spotlight, no matter who they are or what they do, they are essentially savaged by the media. Whilst the film obviously doesn't deal with it in depth I thought it interesting to have that in there.

The other thing the film very subtly deals with is the focus on the current obsession with technology, particularly games with the young. I remember reading a while ago that scientists predicted that in time people's thumbs would become longer like a finger from the constant game play that is so common these days. I don't know how much validity this argument has but there seems to be a subtle comment on the addiction to gameplay/technology in the film in which Reed secretly plays with some technogadget and admits to Ben that Susan says he is addicted to it and he is. As he plays it his stretchy thumbs fly all over the place. And as I have recently been told by my other half recently that I am addicted to the computer it seems quite a pertinent argument for our current climate. Also the fact that it is directed at a young audience even if it goes over their heads, maybe their accompanying parents will think about it, even though I doubt it.

DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#94 Post by DrewReiber » Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:11 pm

I don't buy for a second that I would have liked the Fantastic Four movies at 8 years old. I'm not *that* different from when I was a kid, as hard as it is to believe. I know because the FF films are so stupid and boring that I get the same gut reaction I did to Superman III at that age.

When I was small, Superman III was one of the most unflinchingly boring big budget movies my parents would put on the TV for me. The action scenes were too far apart, lacked any real tension or imagination (except for the junkyard), and the humor was so out of place and flat that my child brain couldn't enjoy it. I think the only movie that stupid I could tolerate at 6 (and only once, mind you) was Howard the Duck. And the reason for that was Jeffrey freaking Jones possessed by a demon.

That's right, I said I would have enjoyed Howard the Duck more than Fantastic Four. :P

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#95 Post by Antoine Doinel » Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:37 am

Seth Rogen has signed on to write and star in The Green Hornet.

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

#96 Post by Jeff » Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:26 pm


DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#97 Post by DrewReiber » Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:25 pm

I have no idea why, but I just tried to post and it redirected me to the sign-in page and deleted my entire response.

The gist of my original post:

I've been MIA after moving to LA and my own computer is still in storage.

I'll be at San Diego Comicon and I'll be able to post updates on any of the comicbook movie panels, as well Blade Runner: Final Cut, WALL-E, George Romero/Max Brooks, Syd Mead, Babylon 5: The Lost Tales, Shoot 'Em Up and Twin Peaks: The Complete Series... in their own proper threads of course.

They're also screening the animated Superman: Doomsday, animated Doctor Strange (probably skip it) and previews for The Dark Knight, Favreau's Iron Man and the animated Justice League: New Frontier. Apparently the president of production for Marvel Studios will be at a number of these discussions, so I'll probably have some cool stuff to post regarding their slate.

User avatar
dx23
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Puerto Rico

#98 Post by dx23 » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:07 am

From the imdb.com:
'Tsotsi' Director Gets His Claws Out


Tsotsi director Gavin Hood is set for a change of pace after signing up to direct X-Men spin-off Wolverine. The South African filmmaker will direct Australian actor Hugh Jackman as the lone-wolf superhero, who last appeared in 2006's X-Men: The Last Stand. Troy screenwriter David Benioff will write the screenplay for the movie, which is expected to hit screens next year.

User avatar
backstreetsbackalright
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:49 pm
Location: 313

#99 Post by backstreetsbackalright » Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:05 pm

Reading the news today and saw this.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#100 Post by Antoine Doinel » Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:30 pm

McSweeney's has Michael Chabon's unused script for Spiderman 2 available for download here (scroll down).

Post Reply