Alright who is in the JLA movie, debate

[Ginger Tea]

Well they couldn't make a trilogy out of a 6 or 7 book franchise (I forget if it was 6 books 7 movies or 7 books 8 movies), but you can lump twilight (my 'spelling' of it redlined but this auto corrected one looks just as off?) into that too as that wasn't a trilogy.

The only ones I've seen, well read, that have jazzed up the origin have been the Elseworld books and even then sometimes it's not too different an origin it's the growing up that tangents Supermans life not how where he lands (although Red Son is a good example).

Having Jack Naiper be the one to kill the Wayne family as a 2 bit thug gives a faceless character a name and a connection, not that he knew what his actions would cause later on in his life. But still, parents gunned down in an alley way, much the same.

Now if they changed Parkers spider bite that would be interesting, all they have done in the past is update some of the bits in between the bite and the donning of the costume, iir the wrestling of Ultimate and the Rami movie tied back to at least one updated retelling, so nothing much new there, though it forgoed the microscope to a more up to date and relevant piece of technology they were going to buy.
Changing it to be his mother being Aunt May and his father being the murdered Uncle Ben changes nothing apart from him no longer being an orphan.

Having him experiment with drugs and have one syringe contain a 'spider venom' or accidentally leaked black market super soldier syrum lost in a batch of other pre packaged needle based drugs, well although condoning drug use (which comics shied away from unless cringe worthy PSA's) having Parker become a superhero due to a drug habbit would be more interesting than another retelling of the same story even with a different writer director and actor.
His origin has veered so slightly over the years that that was one of my prime reasons to not watch the 4th movie, I didn't want to go over old ground if nothing much has changed.
And honestly had it?

Between Rami's and the other one, what were the differences?

[Nekojin]

Several people have mentioned this, so I'll stick my neck out and address the elephant in the room here: Retelling the origin story.

Everyone knows Batman's origin. Everyone knows Spider-Man's origin. People who have never seen any of the movies know these two well. Superman, somewhat less so these days, but still, he fits into the same mold - almost any time we have a gap between movies, the movie studios feel compelled to start off a new series with a retelling of the origin, usually with some twists to keep it fresh. Why do they do this, when we already know these characters pretty well already?

Well, there's a couple of reasons. The most basic reason is that everyone wants to put their mark on a classic. There's almost* nothing better than putting your own spin on a classic, and surprising the audience while giving them exactly what they expect at the same time. Every writer who aspires to write a Batman movie wants to change up the origin, show some facet that hasn't been explored before. Every director who gets tapped to direct a Spider-Man movie wants to show that he's different, he's better than those previous directors. And what better comparison can there be than having your version of the origin compare against their version?

And then there's the actors. There's no better way to immerse an actor in an unfamiliar role (that is familiar to the audience) than to give them a script where the character is doing something new, unfamiliar. Any missteps by the actor can be written off as missteps by the character.

Sadly, Hollywood has fallen into the Trilogy Trap - every contract is written for a three-movie obligation and no more; the Avengers franchise (and all of the related movies) is the first time in ages, aside from Harry Potter, that anyone has broken out of this mold. And when you're doing superhero trilogies, it's pretty much a given that you're going to get "The origin, with a twist" as the first of the three. Hopefully, DC can learn from Marvel here, and avoid that trap; they've fallen into it enough times with Batman.

As far as I can tell, Downey loves doing Iron Man, and he's going to keep doing it as long as there are movies to be made and he can be made to look youthful. It is, after all, a character whose career nearly mirrors his own. With luck, Marvel will be able to ride this for a decade or more of good, solid movies.

* The only thing better is providing something completely new and novel that goes on to be the thing that gets reiterated endlessly.

[lordlundar]

Ok, to be fair lets look at the other side, marvel. How in the past (and sometimes in the present) each has also been somewhat bleh at times.

You sparked me into it.

Lets start with the green whale in the room, the Hulk. The hulk really when you get down to it is not interesting (that is why some movies they made about the hulk failed). He is Supes on a very bad day. Invulnerable, strongest there is, etc etc. When the human side of him was boring, people found him boring..and just watched it for the next "HULK SMASH".

That is a disappointing part about Hulk is that "HULK SMASH!!" is the only thing that people know him for. Thankfully he's written better more recently (In the Avengers movie he doesn't even say the signature line and in Earth's Mightiest heroes? They made Hulk far more intriguing than banner and extremely well rounded) but it really does boil down to a writer just having no clue what to do with him.

Captain America had to overcome his own checkered past, much like Aquaman (except you know, no water powers). Like Aquaman, take away what powers he shares with the rest of the avengers, and you just have a flag waving soldier. He doesn't even get the powers in the water bit.

Ehh, not really. Cap hasn't been the excessive patriot since WW2 ended. Heck, since the 90's he's been written as largely anti-establishment. For the most part Cap's been about fighting evil wherever it is and whatever it is than any blind patriotism.

Thor. Even worse then superman in some ways. He is a blasted God (not demigod like supes)..you have to give him ridiculously powered enemies OR rely on his team to pick up the 'wow' factor. True, he has the whole thee and thou which is cool, but again..not really that much different then supes to be honest. In fact since he is from a different place (much like WW) he could be compared honestly with WW except of course a ridiculously overpowered WW ('Great Hera!' 'By Odin's Beard!')

Thor I'll grant you. In standalone he deals with cosmic level threats alone and his development boils down to flipping off his father and getting spanked for it. In teamups he tends to be either the alpha strike and put out for the rest of the fight or the omega finisher to land the final blow. Otherwise he just tends to be there unless it deals with his standalone stuff.

The point being, that everything mentioned about the JLA can be put on the Avengers also. Only instead of ONE superman, they have TWO. TWO that they have to put up against godlike beings for the movie not to be boring. Why do you think that for the majority of the movie that Hulk was kept out as much as possible? Sure they hit the nail on the head with Loki, and the next one looks like its going to be Darkseid (or is it Apocolypse ? Sorry mind drawing blank here).

Thanos. Darkseid is DC and Apocalypse doesn't have the bumpy chin. :P

And it really does show the difference between the two. Marvel writers for the most part have shifted to a character focus instead of a powers focus that DC is still caught on. It's why Batman is still such a big seller. He's the only A-lister for DC that doesn't rely on powers. DC still pushes on what they can do, not who they are. Marvel still has a way to go (Hulk can stand to be better fleshed out on his character as opposed to a foil for Banner and Thor needs more development in general) but they do tend to be more character driven than what you see in DC stuff.

The moral of this is, that if done right, anything can be over come. They just have to do it right.

I fully agree. That's been the trouble with a lot of DC characters. Unless it's an A-lister there tends to be little effort put into it. Marvel suffers for this as well but not as much.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

They don't need a retcon, they just need to make it a different character altogether. Have Bruce Wayne, but don't have it be Nolan's Wayne that Superman is in. Nolan's Batman can probably be best viewed as a miniseries. It told a three part story and resolved the character which for Batman actually is possible and less so for WW or Superman that are both Super regardless of effort. It was a character study wrapped in the clothing of a Superhero movie. But it doesn't fit well in a Universe designed to be ongoing. It's also a very specific taste.

Essentially, the problem you see with Supes and Batman needing to be fleshed out is how we know JLA really isn't... well ready. If you're going to throw that many characters together, you can characterize all of them but you can't do the grunt work of massive backstory. Avengers really only had time for Widow/Hawkeye (mainly by tying them together) and Hulk. CA, IM and Thor simply played aspects of their established personalities.

[Mytical]

While I do like JLA, I do see another huge problem with a movie about it. We've already covered the part that regardless how great/amazing/etc the movie could be it will still be "Oh they are just copying Marvel". It could be the biggest, most epic thing EVER, and it will still be 'just copying Marvel'. There is yet another strike to consider against it also.

The last batman movie, sad to say, pretty much stomped out the epicness that was the batman movie before it (just because it happened to share the name). It was so boring, that yet another Batman movie would have to come out..and people are getting a little tired of Batman movies. If they would have stopped at the Joker, it would have made a great intro into a JLA movie. Now I don't know if they can salvage it, without yet another retcon, and well..you can only retcon something so many times I am afraid before you have to take a break from it because of audience fatigue with it.

The JLA NEEDS Batman, he is the one that 'keeps them honest'. Almost any other hero you can have an excuse why they are not there (Supes went to some distant world to save them from "X", WW is battling Ares and can't come help, Flash went past the speed of light and won't be back until 2 minutes before he left (ok that one is not really serious, but meh). If you have Supes though, you have to pretty much have Batman. The two are mostly opposite, and that makes good chemistry. With the last Batman being what it is, they need to actually lighten up batman a bit so he isn't so EMO (never thought I'd say that).

Figure since my other posts have been glossed over by a few (not all), I'd change things up. I am, after all, a bigger fan of Marvel then DC.

[Ginger Tea]

Yeah Superman Batman and up until a point outside of animated shows Wonder Woman the holy trinity as I've seen them referred to, needed little introduction, with WW I never saw much of the show if any, I just remember clips, but that could be due to my fragmented memory.
Each had a film and or TV show (or B&W matinee serial) running since god knows when well in WW case it was afaik just the TV show from the 70's, but the others had matinee exposure within the same decade of their printed debut, least it seems that way without checking the dates.

I saw little to no DC animation growing up, but I did Marvel, more specifically Spiderman and his amazing friends.
But I also saw the first two 'unofficial'? Spiderman 70's and the Hulk TV show to know about them, but all my X-men cartoons happened after the first movie and each one was a reboot, so it was irksome to continually show origin story after origin as with Batman and Spiderman, part of me was thinking "Come on now, we know this." but also part of me remembers I'm old enough to have teenage children (none that I am thankfully aware of) and we are getting to the stage where people my age who grew up with a few comic characters on TV might be replaced with a generation raised either on a different genre of super hero or a show I never even knew existed, nor cared about missing.

[Gravekeeper]

As I said a few posts before, it's finding a common ground between fans and strangers to the team or DCU in general

And that right there, frankly, is what I think is DC's biggest weakness with is portrayals in TV and film. They have a habit of just assuming you know everything already. Except when it comes to Batman, oddly. That sort of assumption can be excysed for Batman or Superman. But that's about it. Half of Aquaman's problem is the Who Cares? factor he has with the mainstream audience.

That problem is even bigger for characters like the Martian Man Hunter or Cyborg. These are not household names.

Marvel was very smart about who it picked for the first round of the Avengers. The main stream audience was at least generally aware of the existence of each character and who they were. While they skipped on other main members of the Avengers ( Antman, Black Panther, Wasp, Ms Marvel, Vision, etc ) who were not as well know.

Now that the Avengers is the greatest thing ever Marvel can bring in the other characters in their own movies because people will come watch them just by being related to the Avengers. Hence we have an Antman movie coming up as the first of Marvel's phase three Avenger movies. With Black Panther and Ms Marvel in the works as scripts.

Also, oddly Guardians of the Galaxy. ( I am GROOT ).

I wish they'd sneak in an Alpha Flight reference for lawls in phase three.

[Ginger Tea]

I knew of Aqua Man, but not much past the name and the look, most of my exposure is during the robot chicken shared house skits, which had the Hulk for some reason, not that I minded "Dishes clean".

Had Downey not got his shit together a few years prior we might not have taken to the actor charged with bringing him to life and as posted above, about Cummerbuch (sp) who I wanted to just write as cucumber patch, it reads as "well this character is culturally tainted, but if we cast him it wont matter too much as the female audience will be cucumbering themselves later when they get home.
I'm not saying that the poster would be in that camp, but that recent post on CS (or two weeks ago by now?) about having photo shopped gay sex between Iron man and someone else, perhaps Caps. it gives me the impression the movie could suck, but if there is enough to fanwank fanwanking will happen.

And Downey JR sure supplies the man candy, yet if they cast the 2nd choice, who knows.

But this thread going more and more into the back story and mythos of hero's from the golden age of comics just means that viewers like myself and those with even less comic knowledge (though mine is Marvel bias) might be shafted in the whole "who the fuck are they and why should I care?" case in point the JLA cartoon where it is a given that people know who everyone is, if I'm as much in the dark by the end of the episode as I was at the start, I probably would not watch the next one.
Then it just becomes a show for the fans and a movie just for the fans, well enjoy a low budget affair, because if I cant sit down and get it early on, damned if I wold be hyped for the next movie.

As I said a few posts before, it's finding a common ground between fans and strangers to the team or DCU in general, I don't want to see a name sake just to make it easy for the guy next to me to get it, but I also don't want to have it assumed I'm going to know who everyone is and what their story is as soon as the credits end (short of a Watchmen montage).

[Gravekeeper]

I have got to start reading New 52... >.< Fair enough about the whale, but when he was king, that basically meant he could stop most shipping/sea fairing, and had access to avenues of attack on every single landmass. It was interesting, politically speaking, though admittedly they did more with that with Namor in Marvels U.

Yes, Namor is a good example of an Aquaman like character could be portrayed well. Namor was more of an anti-hero and was actually the villain sometimes as well.

There...there are a LOT of members of the JLA dude. Tons. Some are speedsters, some are bricks, some have weird powers, many have no powers beyond punching things or shooting things with arrows, or being stretching, or escaping anything. Like, seriously, a lot.

I know, but I was focusing on the core well knowns. There are a ton of members of the Avengers too, but there's still the core well knowns.

Fair enough. I may've been reading more into your words than what you meant. However, many of the faults you find are with how he's potrayed--that not the character, thats a failure on the writers side. With proper writing, Aquaman can be damn cool. (And for what happesn to Batman with piss poor writing, I refer you to ASBAR).

Oh, I don't disagree, I was even kind of getting at that. I see characters like Aquaman and they annoy me precisely because it doesn't seem like anyone is trying hard enough to work with him. Thats also conversely why I liked Captain America. They were really clever about giving him depth and embracing the 40s corniness of his outfit while at the same time moving past it to a more modern take.

I do wonder how much of Aquamans issues, however, stem from just not getting good writers, and never recovering from the blow Super Friends delt him. (Seriously, that show stuck a knife in his dignity). I really wish his beard/hook hand look could have come into the mainstream. It was damn cool while it lasted.

From what I see, dignity was in pretty short supply on that show all around. >.>

[violiav]

be Darkseid (or is it Apocolypse ? Sorry mind drawing blank here).

Thanos. He looks very similar to those two. Darkseid, the ruler of the war world Apokolypse, is Supermans foe. Apocolypse did something to the X-Men, I think.

[Duelist925]

But most of that territory is empty. The majority of the super villain threats are on land unless they're specific enemies of Aquaman. Also, he is currently NOT the ruler of the ocean. He gave that up in the new 52. Plus, his marine telepathy was retconned. Its no longer control, he can only influence their natural impulses.

Also, what good is a whale in a land battle? Hence the problem again. Excuses to get him into the water where he can use the full range of his abilities.

I have got to start reading New 52... >.< Fair enough about the whale, but when he was king, that basically meant he could stop most shipping/sea fairing, and had access to avenues of attack on every single landmass. It was interesting, politically speaking, though admittedly they did more with that with Namor in Marvels U.

Super strength and invulnerability are pretty much par for the course though. Every main member of the JLA save Batman and Green Lantern has that in some form. And in Green Lantern's case he's pretty much has the power of a god anyhow. Leaving Batman the only guy that Aquaman could beat in arm wrestling.

There...there are a LOT of members of the JLA dude. Tons. Some are speedsters, some are bricks, some have weird powers, many have no powers beyond punching things or shooting things with arrows, or being stretching, or escaping anything. Like, seriously, a lot.

When you subtract all of Aquaman's powers that are the same as other characters on the team, he's not left with a lot that really sets him apart. Because you're mostly left with ocean specific powers.

He really needs a do over. Like if they focused in more on the hydrokinesis he has sometimes and less on the things that really require him to be in or underwater to work properly. Let him drown/crush people with toilet water or go all bloodbending on some poor fucker by waving a trident around.

This I would actually love to see. Though the bloodbending would likely be taking it too far. I have seen more than a few stories contrasting his viewpoint more than the rest--as a king (before he evidently gave it up), who had to deal with his people along with saving the world. I really dug it when he and Wondy would discuss political issues of being super heroes who were beholden to their people. It was neat.

Again, I never said Aquaman was a bad character. But rather he's saddled with an old fashion corniness of a 40s superhero that did not transition well into more modern comics. Batman transitioned very well ( and was almost as ridiculous originally ).

Fair enough. I may've been reading more into your words than what you meant. However, many of the faults you find are with how he's potrayed--that not the character, thats a failure on the writers side. With proper writing, Aquaman can be damn cool. (And for what happesn to Batman with piss poor writing, I refer you to ASBAR).

I think you may have completely misunderstood me. I didn't mean that those characters are like that now. I meant that all three of them have pasts that are as embarrassing as Aquaman or worse when you look back at the earlier days of comics and TV. That was my point. All three have, despite hilariously embarrassing early histories, moved past that. While Aquaman can't seem to get past his in the mainstream.

Fair enough, and yeah, I did misread that.

I do wonder how much of Aquamans issues, however, stem from just not getting good writers, and never recovering from the blow Super Friends delt him. (Seriously, that show stuck a knife in his dignity). I really wish his beard/hook hand look could have come into the mainstream. It was damn cool while it lasted.

Neko assumed I had not read the wiki and formed my opinion based on 4 TV shows ( 3 of which I don't watch or haven't seen, the 4th I've seen in the occasional amusing Youtube clip ). While you likewise assumed I was saying Aquaman is a bad character. When in the very post you responded too, I said he was not a bad character. But rather that he was saddled with an old fashion superhero concept that's kinda corny in this day and age. Much like Captain America.

I would argue against Caps concept being very corny (its initial presentation, yeah, but hey, that was the golden age for you), though I suppose that could vary depending on what you term his concept. Much the same with Aquaman.

Again, I'd lay the blame for this at simply not getting decent enough writers, or big enough stories to drive the Super Friends image from the public mind.

Yet you proceeded to argue about his character while quoting me saying his character wasn't the problem. So you either made an assumption or you misread something.

Bit of both I'm afraid, and my apologies concerning it.

Probably, I was trying to look at it objectively rather than subjectively. ( But then I didn't think Green Lantern was completely terrible ). I think you sort of hit the nail on the head though about where I was coming from.

IE, Iron Man 2 is a good movie by most standards, its just not a great movie by Marvel standards.

I rather enjoyed the Lantern movie, and IM 2 was decent, myself.

I blame Frank Miller.

Don't we all.

[Mytical]

Ok, to be fair lets look at the other side, marvel. How in the past (and sometimes in the present) each has also been somewhat bleh at times.

Lets start with the green whale in the room, the Hulk. The hulk really when you get down to it is not interesting (that is why some movies they made about the hulk failed). He is Supes on a very bad day. Invulnerable, strongest there is, etc etc. When the human side of him was boring, people found him boring..and just watched it for the next "HULK SMASH".

Captain America had to overcome his own checkered past, much like Aquaman (except you know, no water powers). Like Aquaman, take away what powers he shares with the rest of the avengers, and you just have a flag waving soldier. He doesn't even get the powers in the water bit.

Thor. Even worse then superman in some ways. He is a blasted God (not demigod like supes)..you have to give him ridiculously powered enemies OR rely on his team to pick up the 'wow' factor. True, he has the whole thee and thou which is cool, but again..not really that much different then supes to be honest. In fact since he is from a different place (much like WW) he could be compared honestly with WW except of course a ridiculously overpowered WW ('Great Hera!' 'By Odin's Beard!')

Ironman, well you got me here. Ironman really has been done very well. Even the playboy snarkiness is awesome.

The point being, that everything mentioned about the JLA can be put on the Avengers also. Only instead of ONE superman, they have TWO. TWO that they have to put up against godlike beings for the movie not to be boring. Why do you think that for the majority of the movie that Hulk was kept out as much as possible? Sure they hit the nail on the head with Loki, and the next one looks like its going to be Darkseid (or is it Apocolypse ? Sorry mind drawing blank here).

The moral of this is, that if done right, anything can be over come. They just have to do it right.

Oh and this is coming from a person who enjoys Marvel MUCH more then DC.

[Nekojin]

Fun fact: there are two books out which are essentially psychoanalyses of the character from the comics. At least one says flat out: Batman is sane, unless the writer doesn't want him to be.

I blame Frank Miller.

[Gravekeeper]

Aquaman rules literally every part of earth that is covered in salt water. That's roughly 3/4's of it. And he has the power to control some of the mightiest creatures on earth (whales, giant squid, etc) and thats without even getting into the monsters that exist in the DCU.

But most of that territory is empty. The majority of the super villain threats are on land unless they're specific enemies of Aquaman. Also, he is currently NOT the ruler of the ocean. He gave that up in the new 52. Plus, his marine telepathy was retconned. Its no longer control, he can only influence their natural impulses.

Also, what good is a whale in a land battle? Hence the problem again. Excuses to get him into the water where he can use the full range of his abilities.

Others have pointed out how he is still extremely powerful, beyond the whole "ruler of the seas' thing, with super strength and invulnerability.

Super strength and invulnerability are pretty much par for the course though. Every main member of the JLA save Batman and Green Lantern has that in some form. And in Green Lantern's case he's pretty much has the power of a god anyhow. Leaving Batman the only guy that Aquaman could beat in arm wrestling.

When you subtract all of Aquaman's powers that are the same as other characters on the team, he's not left with a lot that really sets him apart. Because you're mostly left with ocean specific powers.

He really needs a do over. Like if they focused in more on the hydrokinesis he has sometimes and less on the things that really require him to be in or underwater to work properly. Let him drown/crush people with toilet water or go all bloodbending on some poor fucker by waving a trident around.

Partly true--any hero can be made fun of, because they are all fundamentally ridiculous to a degree. Aquaman is no more ridiculous than Batman in fundamentals, and with a half decent writer, can tell damn good stories.

Again, I never said Aquaman was a bad character. But rather he's saddled with an old fashion corniness of a 40s superhero that did not transition well into more modern comics. Batman transitioned very well ( and was almost as ridiculous originally ).

Seriously?

I think you may have completely misunderstood me. I didn't mean that those characters are like that now. I meant that all three of them have pasts that are as embarrassing as Aquaman or worse when you look back at the earlier days of comics and TV. That was my point. All three have, despite hilariously embarrassing early histories, moved past that. While Aquaman can't seem to get past his in the mainstream.

Dude, no one made assumptions. You made it abundantly clear what you think.

Neko assumed I had not read the wiki and formed my opinion based on 4 TV shows ( 3 of which I don't watch or haven't seen, the 4th I've seen in the occasional amusing Youtube clip ). While you likewise assumed I was saying Aquaman is a bad character. When in the very post you responded too, I said he was not a bad character. But rather that he was saddled with an old fashion superhero concept that's kinda corny in this day and age. Much like Captain America.

Yet you proceeded to argue about his character while quoting me saying his character wasn't the problem. So you either made an assumption or you misread something.

We may be dealing with my standards here and a difference of opinion more than anything else. RottenTomatoes wise, IM 2 comes in behind IM1, IM3, Thor, Captain America, Spider-Man 1, Spider-Man 2, The Avengers, X-Men, and X2.

Probably, I was trying to look at it objectively rather than subjectively. ( But then I didn't think Green Lantern was completely terrible ). I think you sort of hit the nail on the head though about where I was coming from.

IE, Iron Man 2 is a good movie by most standards, its just not a great movie by Marvel standards.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

There are many complains that can be leveled at Batmans sanity, but citing ASBAR is weak.

Fun fact: there are two books out which are essentially psychoanalyses of the character from the comics. At least one says flat out: Batman is sane, unless the writer doesn't want him to be.