Alright who is in the JLA movie, debate

[Gravekeeper]

That's a rather interesting point, Mytical. You're right, DC tends to shine more with its villains. While its heroes are kind of dull without the foil of the villain. Whereas Marvel's heroes are more compelling by themselves.

That kind of brings up a problem too though. Many of the best portrayals of DC's villains come from TV or movie adaptions. Which is conversely where their worst portrayals of their heroes are. One of their all time best villains wasn't even from the comics after all ( Harley Quinn ) but instead created for a TV show. While other critically acclaimed portrayals have rested on the actor in question.

Marvel has some strong villain characters as well though, and they seem to get a deeper treatment than DC's. DC's villains seem compelling more as forces of nature or chaos ( The Joker being the perfect example ). Whereas Marvel's villains are more compelling as masterminds or agents of a philosophy or cause ( Magneto for example ).

The Dark Knight was good because of the Joker. While, likewise, the third movie was kinda meh because of Bane. Nolan Batman by himself was boring and unlikable. Conversely, in a Marvel movie its fun to hang out with just the heroes, and more fun to hang out with them and the villain ( Loki being a great example ).

Like I said before, DC mastered grittiness but they forgot how to do charm. Marvel has completely nailed charm in the Avenger movies, but can also display darkness/grittiness when needed. But doesn't lay it on heavy enough to suffocate you like DC does.

DC needs to go back to Michael Keaton Batman sort of tone basically. Batman was dark, but still had some wit and charm to him with Keaton. Whereas Bale just alternated between unrelenting angst and that stupid voice. DC got stuck on the gritty reboot bandwagon, while Marvel stuck to making a comic book movie and ended up making the best comic book movie of all time thus far.

[Mytical]

Marvel's Aventers are a little more 'flawed' tbh, and make engaging stories on their own. Captain America, though superstrong etc basically just a genetically modified human. All the quirks and downsides that that entails. The exception was Thor, and what makes Thor so good is what makes DC so good (which I will get to). Even the incredible hulk, the stongest 'human' (even altered, he was still human) was broken inside. He didn't want or ask for the hulk, but was stuck with it. Ironman had a bad heart, etc.

DC's heroes can seem so...alien (pardon the pun). With the exception of Batman, they sort of lack a depth that Marvel was able to pull off. But even Batman needed what a good DC JLA needs. A good villain. Most of the 'GOOD' Batmen movies had one thing in common. Interesting villains. Most of the time when Superman 'missed' was the villain was overdone or just not interesting. That is where DC shines over Marvel in my opinion. The Villains. The Bad guys. What makes the DC heroes interesting. Sadly the best villains were mostly reserved for it's big two.

Superman has had his powers revamped a dozen times trying to make him more interesting..but what really deep down makes the 'Goody two shoes fighter for truth, justice, yada yada' to me is his villains. Because they made really bad guys. Lex. Brainiac, Doomsday, etc. Even the 'goodlike' enemies you just LOVED to hate.

Batman is a bit more interesting on his own, but his story just isn't compelling without a good bad guy. Take the recent movie with Bane (et al) it was kinda boring, because the story and the villain was boring. When he has interesting Villains (Jack Nicholson as The Joker, Jim Carey as the riddler) is when I enjoy it the most.

Green Lantern can be hit or miss, though I really enjoyed the recent animated series because they had interesting bad guys. Sinestro though..I don't know..has become blah. Need a GOOD bad guy to make the lantern seem interesting. BUT (and I will get to this soon) for the most interesting JL movie may absolutely need him.

The weakness of Flash is, his enemies are kinda bleh except Mirror Master. Boomerang, Captain Cold (too much like Mr Freeze), and such just don't seem to cut it. Again he was sort of interesting in the animated Justice League, because he was snarky..and as a founding member he should be in the movie.

Anyhow the point is, DC heroes are kind of .. too good to be true, and without good enemies I just don't think JLA would cut it in the movies.

Which brings us to the most interesting villains ever. The Legion of Doom (who's membership always seems to be flexible).

One for each hero, though as I said, DC would probably have to supply a couple from Sups and Batman OR make a movie with WW that had an interesting Villain, and then a Flash movie with an interesting villain. One of the main reasons WW and Flash movies fall flat is the lack of interesting villains. The animated WW I liked because they had an interesting (if over the top) villain.

Oh and we all seem to forget that Apache Chief was in the JLA also..*chuckles* They could bring back the Wonder Twins... heck even the YOUNG JUSTICE group would make a great movie. Anyhow, back to my main thought.

Gorilla Grodd, Solomon Grundy, Black Manta, Cheetah, Sinestro, Lex Luthor, and Mirror Master would make a good LOD for the JLA.

Of course any of the Godlike beings that have fought Sups could do also.

A good story, a good villain (or villains) is much more essential for DC then it was Marvel, who's heroes are a tad more relatable (spelling? And with some exceptions). So they'd get ONE shot to do each movie right, and need a brilliant story and villain for each..but it COULD be done.

[Ginger Tea]

I know WW has Greek gods via AT4W as I never read her or saw much outside of clips of the TV show, but slapping the label Amazon might have people wondering what Latin American's are doing worshiping Greek Gods and TBH I would fall into this category if I knew just a few pieces of info less than I do now.

Comic movies will never please everyone, if they get it authentic to which ever the fan base prefers and make it a movie for comic fans, well that alienates joe public if too much prior knowledge is required.
This then harms projected box office returns, if only comic fans will see it then it wont make as much money and will either be at a loss or at a reduced price akin to the trashcan FF movie.
Both publishers reboot their characters often enough, they should work out a bible for the movie verse and then get comic writers to start the basic frame work, as they know the characters more than whichever Hollywood hack gets drafted in, again something that comic movies have suffered with, but I cant name which, someone with a bit more than a basic idea of the characters just writes an action movie with people who just happen to look like superheroes.

I never knew Constantine was a comic movie and just enjoyed it as a movie, not a brilliant one, but not shite either, knowing the character might have had me seeing it as a shit film.

the 4th modern Spiderman movie was a reboot iir, I never saw it, but they didn't need to stick an origin story in it as the first established enough, retreding old ground in a 90 minute movie just wastes story time, but again not seen it so I cant say how integral to the origin the rest of the movie is, but he supes and bats are culturally ingrained to not really need one any more.
But others, hell if I can name 10% of the roster for any team up's, let alone their back story, so I am in the demographic that they want, movie fans who want to see a movie, it just happens this one has leotards, spandex and superpowers, I don't want it dumbed down too much as the comic fans would have a shit experience, but I also don't want to delve into decades of lore just to know who the fuck this guy is for one scene and why these two characters are fighting over him, if it's an off to the side easter egg it wont matter, if its written as important, it had better be important, but if the only way to show it's important is with a huge flash back, cut it.

This is why the only Marvel I read was the Ultimate universe as I was free of the whole shackles of what had or had not been retconed in or out of existence. And for DC I stuck with their Vertigo range and the odd Elseworld Supes bats trade.

[Panacea]

That aside, Amazons could work if they were Amazons. If you gave them a martial monk sort of bend it could work. Although Amazons were actually agents of chaos in Greek mythology.

Amazons were mythical Greek warriors though.

There's evidence the Amazons did in fact exist. And it's not surprising they were agents of chaos in Greek mythology: they challenged the preconceptions of the men who were writing the mythos!

But WW is being written with the Amazonian aspect intact in the new 52. I'm reading it now; it's good.

[Gravekeeper]

Nobody is talking about doing Golden Age WW, especially when the average persons point of reference is the DCAU JLA. My 10 year old daughter loves WW, but I'm certain she's never read a Golden Age comic in her life. Her point of reference is the DCAU WW. I daresay, that version was no push over.

WW's introduction in DCAU JLA was awful. To paraphase:

"Who are you?"
"Oh hai, I r princess Amazon."
Flash: "Oh god, that is so hawt".

DCAU JLA did an awful job of introducing pretty much everyone. Everybody shows up in episode one with a one line blurb for the most part. When you compare it to Avengers EMH, each character was given an entire episode to themselves before the Avengers were even mentioned.

DCAU vs EMH clearly demonstrates the problem I'm talking about to be honest. Marvel has been careful to develop its characters on the big screen before throwing a party. DCseems to just jump in and assume everyone knows everything.

Like what? There's a finite number of hero archetypes and origins. Batman and Supes have the "orphan" angle all wrapped up. WW is a sometime exile and is a "stranger in a strange land." This world would be odd to her. She's like freaking Thor! People can totally buy into that, but Amazons with powers is a bit of a stretch?

Its not the powers part, its that land of the Amazons is kinda cheesy at this point in time. A more Thor like stranger in a strange land approach would actually work fairly well. She has a similar problem to Captain America; her concept has become somewhat old fashion and Marvel knew it.

So what did Marvel do? It toned down the cheesy factor of Captain America and stopped reminding the audience he was Captain America. His time skip back story gave the perfect excuse for why his concept was old fashion, and most the time everyone just calls him Cap' instead of Captain America. They made his outfit more realistic, and made his original costume kind of an inside joke by making it a stage costume.

They did the same thing with Hawkeye and before all this, with the X-Men. They knew that it wouldn't translate well into a live film. The costumes and what not would look ridiculous. WW has the same problem, that outfit doesn't translate well. Neither does Superman's frankly, they had to mute it down and ditch the red spandex undies. The Flash faces a similar problem, if you recall how ridiculous he looked in the 90s TV series.

If you stop and think about the Avengers, Cap is the only one really wearing what you could call a superhero costume, and that's the brilliant illusion of it all that makes them work on the big screen. Cap also has an excuse to wear said costume because he's from a lost golden age. You don't question Thor or Ironman because they're wearing battle armour. Hulk is his own costume and Hawkeye and Black Widow are simply SHIELD agents.

JLA needs to pull off a similar trick. Especially given how ridiculous flashy the costumes involved are. There's no way they can trot out the stars and stripes swimsuit on Wonder Woman and have it taken at face value. It'll be campy as all get out.

How about "Magic land of various types of different looking amazon women"? These women supposedly spend several hours a day training, why wouldn't they be somewhat attractive looking and fit("attractive" being a generality, since everyone has different tastes)?

They would be attractive, but not attractive in the Hollywood sense. Thats the problem. Superpowered Waif Syndrome. A stick with a pretty face that inexplicably is suppose to beat the shit out of 10 dudes at once. Amazons would be more like an Olympic athlete.

That aside, Amazons could work if they were Amazons. If you gave them a martial monk sort of bend it could work. Although Amazons were actually agents of chaos in Greek mythology.

Amazons were mythical Greek warriors though. They did not actually fight naked or anything like that. They wore armour and helmets like any other warrior in that time period. Its Hollywood that has sexed up the idea of amazons into chain mail bikinis and thats kind of the problem. WW's outfit was based on the invented idea of an amazon, not the mythological idea. Which is weird seeing as all the other amazons in DC comics are actually clothed/armoured properly and not in a one piece with thigh boots. Even WW herself tends to be in more appropriate Greek clothing when shown in flashbacks. Well, except DCUA which put her in a Greek miniskirt because God forbid we not see her thighs.

Also the whole breast cut off thing is a myth on top of a myth. They did no such thing in the original Greek myths.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

My thing with WW and this just comes from consuming lots of stories via IO9, The Mary Sue, etc. is that she's just a minefield. She comes with so much expectation and baggage that I'm not sure there is a "Universally Likable" version of her. That's not her fault, rather she just comes loaded with a lot of things people want from her portrayal. There are already so many interpretations out there.

Gloria sort of encapsulates the problem for me. It's like if Trekkies had the ability to use equality or a cause greater than Star Trek to argue about why you can't change Star Trek. And technically Trekkies do, but science, space exploration, and equality in that universe didn't really seem to inspire much of anything in terms of preventing retconning the universe in the effort to make Star Trek more universally appealing.

So WW can either try to keep with Steinem's vision, hardcore comic readers vision, or some writer we're even talking about yet that tries to blend the best of all worlds in order to make a relatable woman that works in a 2013 context and doesn't actively alienate any one particular audience. But from canon, there's just a lot of knives to juggle.

The Thor movie for example spent half its time on Asgard just to set itself up AND it used two other lead level characters. It sold out screen time to be about Asgardian succession. Earth is just where some things happened. I'm not sure WW can try that. Yet it's going to have to juggle Greek Gods if it tries to go for her origin story.

How is going to handle her beauty which is stated to be somewhat central usually with the phrase of "beauty of Aphrodite"? How do you do that without getting male gazey? Do you just fit it all in with one Steve Rogers or Thoresque fanservice shot and contain it? Do you Judge Dredd her and not focus and have people talk about it?

Do you respect Steinem's wish for how WW resolves issues and keep WW as an antidote for the "sadism and gore" of men's comic book characters and make WW about compassion and conversion rather than victory or martial prowess?

I don't have answers to these, I think my problem is people have invested so much hope in what WW SHOULD be, that by the time it gets answered a large number will be disappointed. Better to be Storm or the Black Widow where existence is sufficient philosophically and writing a fun compelling character is sufficient story wise.

[violiav]

Wonder Woman needs a deft writer and director at the reigns who can modernize her. She's a lot like Superman though in that her costume and powers are a relic from the golden age. Her personality is also a complete mystery to the average movie goer. Also, the article you linked, Gloria has no real problem with the costume. She was upset over changing the powers and mythos. When frankly, those are the two things holding WW back from a mainstream audience.

Gloria has two issues, the background being the bigger of the two.

Steinem says I don't have a big issue with jeans versus skirt -- though jeans give us the idea that only pants can be powerful -- tell that to Greek warriors and sumo wrestlers -- and though in fact, they're so tight that they've just painted her legs blue; hardly a cover-up. I have an issue with changing her clothes and destroying home and family on what seems to be the brainstorming of a very limited group pf brains.

There's no way WW can be as passive as she was in the golden age. WW was an air headed ditz half the time in the golden age.

Nobody is talking about doing Golden Age WW, especially when the average persons point of reference is the DCAU JLA. My 10 year old daughter loves WW, but I'm certain she's never read a Golden Age comic in her life. Her point of reference is the DCAU WW. I daresay, that version was no push over.

Her mythos also needs a modern update. There's no way you can go with the full on princess of the Amazons from the magic land of hot amazon women thing now.

Like what? There's a finite number of hero archetypes and origins. Batman and Supes have the "orphan" angle all wrapped up. WW is a sometime exile and is a "stranger in a strange land." This world would be odd to her. She's like freaking Thor! People can totally buy into that, but Amazons with powers is a bit of a stretch?
How about "Magic land of various types of different looking amazon women"? These women supposedly spend several hours a day training, why wouldn't they be somewhat attractive looking and fit("attractive" being a generality, since everyone has different tastes)?
Throw in some battle weary Amazons-missing limbs, eyes, scars, right breasts missing.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansit.../news/?a=77948

[Ginger Tea]

I have to admit my knowledge of Tony Stark was scant when I saw the first movie, hell most of it stemmed from the Ultimate line and as that isn't continuity per say, the origin could have been vastly different to the original instead of a modern retelling.

Spiderman was a better movie than the 70's ones, but then again they were the 70's ones.
FF I was meh about.
Never saw the hulk movies, but got the 'cannon' one with the avengers box set.
Capt I saw the late 80's early 90's one but not gotten round to the new one, just seen Iron man 1+2 and Avengers from the set so far.
Thor I know of as a character outside of Norse mythos, but my first introduction to him and this was a long gap till I read about him via a cross over, was a scene in Adventures in Babysitting (I think the alternate title was A night on the town) where the Mechanic had long hair and the sister was convinced he was thor in disguise and offered him her plastic helmet.

I'm old enough to have seen some of the Hulk TV shows, but none of the back door pilots for DD and Thor, just the TGWTG crossovers.

I knew a few names of the Xmen by the time the movies first aired, but I had not read any or seen the cartoons

The DD movie was rather forgettable.

With DC, I grew up with the Reeves Superman and Reruns of the Adam West TV Batman saw the first 2 Batman movies but I don't recall seeing the third and avoided all others (or were there just 4?) till the reboot.
Saw Returns and wondered why it was a continuation and not a reboot as the Reeves era went south in the 3rd movie and there was a long gap.
Unless it was a continuation of Lois and Clarke with different actors.
But as with that and Smallville Sups has had a lot of non comic exposure for all sorts of comic and original foils to appear, with varying degrees of reception.

I never watched WW but saw clips, all I really remember was the outfit and the spinning around to change the golden lasso but not it's powers the bullet deflecting bracelets and the invisible plane.

Saw Green Lantern, was OK I guess, but I have no idea how well he was portrayed.

I know very little of DC's other characters especially those in the JLA, I might be able to name a few and their powers, but if they did an Averngers without establishing them somehow, I might as a non DCU follower, be turned off by too many too much too little.

You were not thrown into the deep end with the Watchmen even though they were all exclusive to the 12 issues and nothing else (till the before watchmen titles) but we did have enough back story given (via flashbacks) and even though bits were changed or dropped, enough was given to make them feel complete characters on screen without having read the original.
Do this with a modern team and you would spend too much of the movie establishing characters with little action (or just solo set pieces) that by the time the team is assembled and ready for action, it's a final 20 minute set piece. That or you just throw the viewer into an already established team and expect them to just deal with it.
TV shows have the ability to draw out the origins over a few episodes, that's great but a movie doesn't normally have 24 45 minute episodes to back it up.

I had never seen Firefly by the time I watched Serenity, but it was written free of backstory baggage, it was for the fans as closure, but also it was open enough for someone like me who had heard of the show but never seen it to enjoy it.

Then again, you could cast a TV show with the hopes of generating a movie or 3 later on (worked for ST:TNG long after the last episode even if some were a bit off), but rarely do you get a TV show from a movie without a heavy recast, if I wanted the A Team back, I would not have cast any big name (although Hanibal is the only one I can recall being big) as it would look out of place afterwards.

[Gravekeeper]

Oh, god no. Please not Lucy Lawless. Don't get me wrong. I loved Xena, one of my favorite TV shows. But she's too old, and people would not be able to separate the two characters. They need someone new and fresh.

That wasn't a quote from me >.>. I would rather Wonder Woman be played by a serious, *athletic* actress. Not yet another waif with tits that looks like her arm will snap like a twig if she throws a punch.

Superman's problem has always been his power level and how to create a challenge that actually threatens that level short of just having him fight other gods all the time. Couple that with the boy scout attitude and you have a problem. The boy scout attitude works on Captain America because he's not all powerful and he does have problems his power can't overcome. Its much more difficult to write that for Supes without threatening to end the world every other week.

Batman on the other hand is a very strong character ( and yeah kind of batshit crazy in the comics sometimes >.> ) but also very much a loner. More analogous to Ironman to begin with. Albeit on the opposite end of the attitude spectrum. Both characters would need a lot of development indicating their shift towards joining a team. Ironman had 2 movies to do that. Batman hasn't. Also, there's no way you could put Nolan Batman on a team. You would need to reboot Batman yet again.

Wonder Woman needs a deft writer and director at the reigns who can modernize her. She's a lot like Superman though in that her costume and powers are a relic from the golden age. Her personality is also a complete mystery to the average movie goer. Also, the article you linked, Gloria has no real problem with the costume. She was upset over changing the powers and mythos. When frankly, those are the two things holding WW back from a mainstream audience. There's no way WW can be as passive as she was in the golden age. WW was an air headed ditz half the time in the golden age. Her mythos also needs a modern update. There's no way you can go with the full on princess of the Amazons from the magic land of hot amazon women thing now.

The Flash is to JLA what Antman is to the Avengers. His powers are boring, so interest has to lean on the character himself. Like Antman, Flash will need a *good* writer. I was ready to toss Antman for being silly, but Mightiest Heroes changed my mind about him. Both by making him a character outside of Antman and giving him a great foil in Wasp. Flash would need similar treatment. He also definitely needs a movie first.

The reason the Avenger worked so well is because all of its characters were always intended to be in a movie together. The storylines of all of their movies were intertwined and they all had easter eggs, cameos and plot points that pointed to the other movies. DC hasn't done any of that and keeps alternating between rebooting their two biggies. Bats and Supes.

They can't just leap to a JLA movie, because no one will give much of a shit in the mainstream audience. By the time Avengers hit, everyone was invested in the characters already. Even the characters that were lesser known, like Ironman, were give proper treatment. I didn't know much about Ironman before the movies, and they made sure to give Ironman two movies before Avengers to really flesh him out.

JLA needs at least four movies: Supes, Bats, WW and Flash. Past that the rest of the possible team members fall off the radar of the mainstream. Or worse yet, are long running pop culture punchlines like Aquaman. Who will never, ever be taken seriously.

DC's current movie tone won't work though. Nobody wants to watch the dark, gritty hopeless reboot JLA movie. >.>

Avengers works so well because each of the core Avengers stood on their own in their own movie, but also worked perfectly off of one another when together. DC needs that level of writing but I don't think they know where to find it without just trying to rehire everyone Marvel did for Avengers.

[Panacea]

Avengers was so strong because each character had at least one movie of character development and origin prior to the ensemble movie. But JLA has all of two characters that are strong enough to hold down their own movie, and even then its historically been a 50/50 chance

There were four core characters who got their own movies prior to the Avengers movie: the Hulk (and they had to do two to get it right), Thor, Ironman, and Captain America. Hawkeye and the Black Widow were introduced in Thor and Ironman II respectively. It would be easy enough to follow that formula for the JLA, and quite frankly they need to. Trying to introduce that many heroes at once would be a nightmare; you wouldn't get a coherent story told. Marvel's formula for this was pure genius, but it helped that 1) special effects technolgy improved to support the genre, and 2) they got some of the best writers in the field to write for the characters. Previous attempts to bring Cap to the big screen were an embarrassment, to say the least.

I could see them introducing some of the JLA characters in combined movies; for example the Flash and Green Lantern since Barry Allen and Hal Jordon were best friends (and two of the most boring characters in the DC Universe, unfortunately). Martian Manhunter would work well in a future Superman movie; in fact in the cartoon series he was introduced in a special combining the Batman Animated series and Superman animated series versions. Flash and GL had appeared in other episodes of the Superman series, while WW was in that same special.

The Flash? Who cares.

Not that it matters, but I do. The Flash is my favorite DC characters (Wally West, not Barry Allen).

Supes is a very one note character, and he's so powerful that he becomes uninteresting. When you put him on a team of people that objectively speaking, he doesn't even need the help of, it kinda makes it even worse.

Superman is a smart fellow (he is an investigative journalist after all), but the key to a good Superman story is not his powers or his smarts. It's how he solves the moral problem. The key to a good Superman story is not how he solves the problem, but why it takes him so long to get there.

Flash is a smart ass that I've seen. He's just an awfully written smart ass.

I don't get the impression you actually read the comics, or at least not much, or at least not DC since you weren't sure which character was owned by which company.

With comic book characters, there is often a difference between how they are written in the books, and how they are written for television or the movies. Batman in the comic book is an unmitigated ass, totally unlikeable. But he's scary, and smartly written, and his supporting cast ARE likeable (my favorite is the Spoiler), which keeps readers coming back.

As for the Flash, it depends on which Flash you are talking about. The TV Flash is Wally West, who does have a flip sense of humor and is a bit self centered on TV (or at least he seems so; he shows a completely different side of himself in "Flash and Substance). He's less self centered in the comics; in fact he is much more in touch with people and very likable on his own merits, while Barry Allen is dull and pendantic. Wally had to deal with serious issues related to being both a superhero and a human being, which made him interesting. Barry has never really dealt with those issues, those recent stories have tried (unsuccessfully; I quit reading the book).

Even taking that away though, he's boring from a superhero premise. Wee, he's super fast......so....what? So is Superman. Then they stuck all sorts of ridiculous corny powers on him to try and make him cooler ( Super reading! Super protection for his clothes from friction! ). Nevermind that whole speedverse bullshit or whatever, ugh. The mystical dimension all speed heroes in DC get their power from.

The Speed Force. Yeah, the idea is problematic from a realism point of view. Superman's gifts are at least explained by the fact he is an alien. The Flashes are human. They took away a lot of Wally's powers after Crisis on Infinate Earths, then created the Speed Force as an excuse to bring them back. Granted, the Flash has a lot of baggage from the Silver Age when the laws of physics didn't matter to writers or readers, and current writers have been unable to come up with a way to explain what the Flash does or is.

I don't care. It's a good ride To each his own.

Thats the biggest problem a JLA movie faces though. DC doesn't know how to do that. Their biggest movie success has always been Batman, and in recent years, only due to the dark, gritty reboot tone. Which they tried to swing at Superman now too, but failed. Their attempts to make more Avengers like comic booky fair has failed miserably.

They nailed angst, but they can't figure out charm.

We agree on this one. They never should have gone for gritty with Superman, but going back to the Christopher Reeve camp didn't work either. They should have stuck with the formula they hit on with Smallville. That DID work, and could have easily transferred to the big screen. They had a ready fan base, too. Tom Welling would have reprised the role if they'd done that.

They need charm to make the other characters work, especially the Flash, Wonder Woman, and GL. They can make Aquaman work with grit, and probably Martian Manhunter as well.

But are those characters part of the JLA? DCs best character's are largely clustered in the Batman franchise and to a lesser extent, Superman. Once you get past those two, the household name recognition drops like a rock. Every knows Batman fights the Joker and Superman fights Lex Luthor. But past that if you're not already a devoted DC reader then this is going to be new territory. The average 10 year old can probably tell you everything about Batman, but I doubt he'd have any idea who Flash's archnemesis is.

Tough one. I'd call it close on between Gorilla Grodd and the Rogues Gallery.

The Rogues Gallery: a collection of minor villains (criminals) who formed a loose team who worked together to give the Flash a hard time. Individually, they can't take him on; together they are formidable.

Back to your point; I don't agree that's an issue any more than it was for the Avengers franchise. A lot of people knew who the Hulk was from the TV show. Ironman, probably not so much. But it didn't matter: the combination of good special effects, good writing, and Robert Downy Jr was all the masses needed to make a hit. The average viewer didn't need to know who Ironman was, or who his villains are. In fact, it was a benefit that most people didn't know that Obidiah Stane was actually Ironman's adversary at the beginning of the movie. But the in jokes (Stane's comment to Tony, "We're ironmongers" was a direct reference to the Ironmonger suit that later appeared in the movie, and was a well known character in the comic books).

DC just needs to do the same and in fact did with their presentation of Lucius Fox in Batman Begins. They can do it again with other important but minor DC characters to flesh out the universe: it only takes solid writing and the right casting to make it work.

Also, I *liked* Ryan Reynolds as the Green Lantern.

I actually haven't seen it yet; missed it in theaters and been too busy watching other stuff. The biggest complaint I heard was the special effects with his costume were distracting.

A lot of the origins, such as Wonder Woman, are deeply stuck in the era they were created in. They need a reboot onto themselves before they get near a mainstream audience.

Oh, I agree. The problem is, the reboots are sometimes just as bad as the original. As evidenced by the first Hulk movie (horrible plot).

[QUOTE=violiav;140323][QUOTE=Gravekeeper;140300],

DC isn't ballsy enough to give Wonder Woman her own movie and even if they do, there's no way they won't fuck it up and turn her into a pair of tits in a corset like they did with that TV series pilot a year or so ago. Instead of using her newer revised costume that's actually respectable.

/QUOTE]

And that's a problem. A Wonder Woman movie is a necessity for a JLA movie, and can be done right if they can just get away from the TV series of the 70's, and her connection to the Greek Gods and focus on her work as both a warrior and a diplomat: the dichotomy makes for interesting story telling.

A Wonder Woman movie should have kind of a Xena vibe to it. Heck, just get Lucy Lawless. I don't think she's even aged since Xena went off the air.
Pants doesn't equal respectable and skirts/bathing suits/shorts/dresses doesn't equal not respectable.

Oh, god no. Please not Lucy Lawless. Don't get me wrong. I loved Xena, one of my favorite TV shows. But she's too old, and people would not be able to separate the two characters. They need someone new and fresh.

[violiav]

[QUOTE=Gravekeeper;140300],

DC isn't ballsy enough to give Wonder Woman her own movie and even if they do, there's no way they won't fuck it up and turn her into a pair of tits in a corset like they did with that TV series pilot a year or so ago. Instead of using her newer revised costume that's actually respectable.

/QUOTE]

The show was bad for reasons other than the costume. Lack of direction, good acting, lack ofunderstanding of the character.
I think the new costume was a cock up. Adding pants didn't make the costume respectable, it took away from Wonder Woman. Even Gloria Steinem (I think her feminist cred is fairly solid) had something to say about it:http://pursepundit.blogspot.com/2010...der-woman.html
Besides, in mythology didn't amazons go into battle naked? Even her classic costume would be overdressed!
A Wonder Woman movie should have kind of a Xena vibe to it. Heck, just get Lucy Lawless. I don't think she's even aged since Xena went off the air.
Pants doesn't equal respectable and skirts/bathing suits/shorts/dresses doesn't equal not respectable.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I'll respectfully disagree with Superman but that's because I tend to enjoy the Donner interpretation of him. When he's restricted to fighting beings on his own level or obstacles that are ingeniously overwrought he's prone to failure as long as he has emotional stakes in the outcome. Lex is still a good foil. That's also the version that actually counterpoints Batman. Any version of angsty or pragmatic Supes essentially IS Batman with more powers. Supes can be angry, but trying to anchor him in a negative emotion just doesn't work very well.

Supes most compelling weakness always seems to depends on interpretation, but I find the one with the most emotional resonance does tend to be the Clark Kent persona whose emotions are vulnerable and wants to fit in and his tendency to view himself in a human context with an exceptionally grounded upbringing. This as also been done as a flat disguise, but I don't find that nearly as compelling. He's one note in the sense he's often written with ridiculous world ending stakes because that's the comic he's in and his human need for connection or sense of fear and compassion get left at the door. There are plenty of humans that have a somewhat inflexible morality and a well adjusted temperament. There's nothing wrong with that character unless you don't test it with your story, which frequently doesn't happen.

Essentially if you play with Clark's desire to fit in and bump it up against the reality of the responsibilities he has, humanly it can be very interesting. I don't particularly view him as invulnerable since frankly he's the one that started the whole, "kill your superhero for a year and say just kidding later" parade. I tend to look at weaknesses as a bit of a viewers construct or a modern reinterpretation. Humans were able to make Zeus a compelling character and immortal was built in to his character.

I just tend to view him as a specific style of hero, one that's not incredibly easy to write and depends a great deal on story. Batman can be written acceptably by a hack. A hack writing Superman looks like what he or she is.

[Gravekeeper]

Just curious if you're a DC person grave. Honestly I'm not a huge fan of Marvel or DC, but I do follow them both. I'm familiar with the characters.

I'm neither, in fact I had to double check a few to see who owned them. -.-

Really what I don't think DC has is a Iron Man esque snarker, but that has traditionally always been something Marvel has been more prone to do with characters like Spidey and Iron Man. Supes has Lois for the wit. Batman generally has his rogues gallery for his.

Supes is a very one note character, and he's so powerful that he becomes uninteresting. When you put him on a team of people that objectively speaking, he doesn't even need the help of, it kinda makes it even worse.

That said, unless you try to mirror the comics, that's not a problem. Why can't the Flash be a snarker that doesn't play nicely with others?

Flash is a smart ass that I've seen. He's just an awfully written smart ass. Even taking that away though, he's boring from a superhero premise. Wee, he's super fast......so....what? So is Superman. Then they stuck all sorts of ridiculous corny powers on him to try and make him cooler ( Super reading! Super protection for his clothes from friction! ). Nevermind that whole speedverse bullshit or whatever, ugh. The mystical dimension all speed heroes in DC get their power from.

Why can't Hal Jordan have a problem with the JLA as a concept because he's seen corruption in the Corps?

Sure, why not. Though that deviates pretty badly from the movie established character who was basically a clownish rogue.

Why not reinvent Wonder Woman's backstory so she actually works since the most frequent complaint about her is her comic mythos doesn't lend itself to 2013 stories?

Thats a harder one. Her back story is pretty ingrained.

In the end, the image recognition is there for Supes, Batman, WW, The Flash, and Green Lantern. Just reinvent the story as necessary to be fun and memorable. Everyone should have a moment, everyone should have a stake, and everyone should have something to gain.

Thats the biggest problem a JLA movie faces though. DC doesn't know how to do that. Their biggest movie success has always been Batman, and in recent years, only due to the dark, gritty reboot tone. Which they tried to swing at Superman now too, but failed. Their attempts to make more Avengers like comic booky fair has failed miserably.

They nailed angst, but they can't figure out charm.

First, DC has a lot more characters that could hold their own movies, but they have no direction as far as overseeing production, so they end up with weak showings. They've done Superman and Batman to death and I understand a second Green Lantern movie is supposed to be in the works, somewhere.

But are those characters part of the JLA? DCs best character's are largely clustered in the Batman franchise and to a lesser extent, Superman. Once you get past those two, the household name recognition drops like a rock. Every knows Batman fights the Joker and Superman fights Lex Luthor. But past that if you're not already a devoted DC reader then this is going to be new territory. The average 10 year old can probably tell you everything about Batman, but I doubt he'd have any idea who Flash's archnemesis is.

Also, I *liked* Ryan Reynolds as the Green Lantern. In fact I just watched that movie two nights ago for the first time. ( They added it to Netflix >.> ). It illustrated exactly what I'm talking about. I really didn't know much about the Green Lantern before seeing the movie. I mean, I knew the whole ring thing and generally what his powers were. But that was about it.

Once the movie threw the whole story in my face though, it was corny. Which I think, ultimately, is the underlying problem DC faces. A lot of the origins, such as Wonder Woman, are deeply stuck in the era they were created in. They need a reboot onto themselves before they get near a mainstream audience. JLA is something that *needs* to use the Avengers approach and give everyone their own movie first. Everyone needs to be modernized and introduced to the main stream audience before they can hope to get a JLA movie together.

Plus, not everybody in Avengers had their own movie prior to the group.

Yes, however, every member of the Avengers was still introduced in one movie prior to Avengers. So there was no need to retread their backgrounds come Avengers. Hawkeye was in Thor. Black Widow was in Iron Man 2. Plus, neither of them are super powered so they didn't require traditional full on superhero origin stories.

hat brings up yet another problem though. Black Widow vs Black Canary and Hawkeye vs Green Arrow. It doesn't even matter which were created first, only that Marvel beat the other two to the big screen.

[HYHYBT]

We are getting a green lantern he's got enough pop culture presence but I think John Stewart for two reasons first off 1. token black guy 2. justice league cartoon.

When he's off doing Green Lantern stuff elsewhere, does the Justice League get John Oliver to fill in?

[Andara Bledin]

First, DC has a lot more characters that could hold their own movies, but they have no direction as far as overseeing production, so they end up with weak showings. They've done Superman and Batman to death and I understand a second Green Lantern movie is supposed to be in the works, somewhere.

Plus, not everybody in Avengers had their own movie prior to the group.

Regardless, if they do the ensemble correctly, there are easily enough characters to make a JL movie. They just have to put someone in charge of the entire movie project to oversee every DC main universe movie that gets put out or it's going to keep on with the hodge-podge quality we've been seeing out of their studio.

It's quite possible that they've figured out their problem on their own and the recent DC universe retcon is supposed to be partly in preparation for a more homogenous vision to bring to the movie franchise. It's a stupid way to go about it, but it would make a certain amount of sense from their side of things.