Amph Justice League the movie

a) I knew of Blade and was a very young comic reader. (He was in the Spider-Man cartoon a decent amount, IIRC)

b) That came out in 95 or 96. That's pre-Buffy and pre-Blade movie. It's pretty darn in-line with what they did in the film. Don't you think Buffy/Angel was modeled after Blade, if anything? The character has been around since the 70s and re-emerged into prominence in the early 90s. Buffy started in 97 and Blade was released in 98. Most likely there was little to no influence of Buffy on Blade, as production takes far longer than a year. How was Blade changed from his comic self? The movie has definitely had an impact on the character, but to what degree?
c) The movie clearly wasn't just a Snipes vehicle, as it was a quality film. And I doubt Marvel saw it as a Snipes vehicle, either.

The Matrix was important. So was Blade. So was Superman. So was Batman. That's the problem with trying to narrow it down to ONE FILM that made it all possible. But Blade was significant, in that it was the first Marvel movie that was any good, and it was the absolute first Marvel super-hero film (Howard the Duck was the first...................................................................). All the other stuff was unreleased or some other crap. DC had a HUGE lead on Marvel. AND- it was the first super-hero movie that wasn't....... tights. It set the tone for taking the material seriously. I'm out on a limb for that last one, but...... there it is.

 

He's had plenty of hits at marvel proper, though. I think Whedon was the least risky prospect they could have gone with, actually--an in-house name with plenty of live action experience.

 

Plus, to a large degree, Avengers was set up for success. It had so much hype and build up and star-power, it was ready to blow. It only needed to be half-decent to be worth the investment, I'd estimate, but of course you're investing for the future, too...

I'd also add to your second point the emphasis that Whedon knows what fans want. His dedication to fans is clear, and it showed in Avengers. I think Marvel had long since learned that you have to fire on all cylinders, especially the fans. You find a good director, not even great, who understands that and gets the underlying properties, coupled with the set-up......

This is why Zack Snyder is a smart choice for Superman. He's proven in 300 and Watchmen, if nothing else, that he cares about what the fans want and the source material. Plus, his movies look/are cool. And Superman will be much less constraining than either 300 or Watchmen, so I think we'll really see him shine in this one. Finally, like Avengers, Superman is primed for success, IMO. The success of the Bat causes a natural reaction of, "what about Superman? I wanna see him!" Then there's the Nolan name that is a stamp of promised quality, great actors.... And really, Avengers has only helped DC. It's whetted the appetite and given them motivation.

But I'm probably only rephrasing what many have already said.

 

I was totally unaware of Blade's appearance in the Spider-Man cartoon. You're right that it's pretty much the same as what they did in the film - I wonder if they deliberately revamped (unintentional pun, lol) Blade in the cartoon with an eye to the movie production. In the comics Blade was not a "daywalker" vampire - he didn't age, could sense supernatural creatures, and had an immunity to vampirism, all because of his mother being bitten by a vamp while she was pregnant with him; he didn't have fangs, blood-lust, or vampire strength, though. He wasn't a "daywalker" in the comics until 1999, well after the movie came out.

You're right about Buffy and Blade being too close to each other in time for Buffy to have been an influence - I thought Buffy was earlier than it was. I know when I saw Blade at the cinema I was watching Buffy season 3 at the time, and Buffy was the first place I'd seen martial arts and vampires combined (though I'm guessing Hong Kong cinema got there first!).

As for point c), for what it's worth, I never said the movie was "just" a Wesley Snipes vehicle, I said " the film was seen much more as a vehicle for Wesley Snipes than a Marvel super-hero movie", and that's a statement I still stand by.

 

Yeah, they did. I read an interview with the showrunner and he mentioned that they actually got to be the first to feature Whistler, a character created for the movie.

 

Blade 2 was the first best Marvel sequel until Spiderman 2 supposedly took that title which is debatable.

 

Blade and Spider-Man are going to be phenomenal in the up-coming JLA movie!

 

I tend to agree, and to the list of Snyder's successes in this regard can be added the mostly excellent Dawn of the Dead remake which began the ascent of his star. However, while so far Snyder's films have rated high on the "cool!" chart, they've also been emotionally cold, trading in any genuine human feeling for a sense of gosh-wow-isn't-that-neat-looking.

From recent headline articles around various internet news sources, the solution to Snyder's emotional distance appears to be to head toward the opposite extreme: making Superman super-angsty, having grown up isolated from his peers and, ahem, alienated from humanity. While this plays to a certain extent on the underlying rage evident in some of Chris Reeve's best moments as the character, it also takes the character farther away from his most successful recent incarnation, namely the Smallville series. In that 10-season show, we saw Clark constantly surrounded by friends and allies and, by the end, quite emotionally stable and ready to take on the burden of his powers and responsibilities to the world.

I'll certainly wait to see the movie before I pass ultimate judgement, and I hope hope hope the film will blow the doors off theaters round the world and put enough butts in seats to justify sequels and a JLA film. But I have reservations about Snyder's approach, despite or perhaps in part because of his penchant for "cool" images and style.

 

Taking the character away from Smallville is a good thing, imo. I was not a fan of the series.

 

Flawed heroes are better heroes IMO, which is why Batman is great.

 

I became a fan after the first, low-budget, creatively scattered season. It became truly excellent in the later, dynamic seasons which featured young JL members like Flash, Green Arrow and Aquaman in supporting roles. The series also served as an intellectual bridge between the Superman of the comics and the character as portrayed by Reeve. My wife and friends and I find the series mostly excellent, albeit with a few head-scratching moments along the way.

 

Of course! My concern is not over the idea that Clark grew up isolated from his peers -- that's been in place at least since Donner's film -- or that Superman may be emotionally flawed, but that Snyder, known for an emotional coldness in his films, may be going too far in the opposite direction, and trying to squeeze out pathos from a character who may be fine the way he is. The proof will be in the proverbial puddin'.

 

a) I mostly agree. I don't think emotions were absent from 300 or Watchmen..... but both of those comics are cold. The emotions of Watchmen are.... sadness, with a shimmer of hope, maybe. And anger. I mean, there was more than that, but when you take it together, that's what springs to mind. Miller and Moore wrote pretty dark, cold stuff, IMO. It's like if you adapted DKR into a movie... That would be cold. The only positive stuff would be Robin's hope and enthusiasm, emotionally. I could be fairly off base, here, but I am operating off emotions.

What I'm saying is, look at his constraints. I think, within the confines, 300 and Watchmen had a few nice moments, emotionally. That said, I haven't seen Sucker Punch or Legend of the Guardians, and have only seen parts of Dawn of the Dead. :/ But even with those two... book and remake in there. Superman is constraining, but you're also not forced into something specific. He's been around for so long, you can justify many choices, as long as hope shines through, in the end. (imo)

b) As I said, there are so many takes on the character at this point... and most have something good to say. The orphan/outcast is a huge part of Superman's character. You're right, though, that the idea that he is a family guy and loves people and has many good friends is also close to his core. I mean, when you distill him down, he's an alien orphan raised by two humble, loving people in a small town. That's going to create a certain internal dichotomy, and you can play to either side or both justifiably. I do think Superman is an emotional guy (he gets angry, he's compassionate, he loves (and is often in love), he's a symbol of hope, etc.), so I totally agree that the movie will dive into those. Also keep in mind we will most likely get three of these bad boys, so just because the first one is one way, doesn't mean the others will be, especially if the first one is darker, and this is Superman. I disagree with the notion that this movie should be dictated in any direction strongly by any one iteration of the character, such as Smallville, unless they come to that decision naturally. Just because that's the most recent thing that's been very popular doesn't mean all that much when dealing with Superman.

c) That's fair.

 

Smallville writer's room, season 1: "I've got a really radical new take on Superman: he's young and good-looking, yet angst-ridden and alienated from his peers!"

Season 6:"I've got a really radical new take on Green Arrow: he's young and good-looking, yet angst-ridden and alienated from his peers!"

Season 8:"I've got a really radical new take on Doomsday: he's young and good-looking, yet angst-ridden and alienated from his peers!"

Season 9:"I've got a really radical new take on Zod: he's young and good-looking, yet angst-ridden and alienated from his peers!"

 

And didn't Superman only meet people like Lois & Lex once he was an adult and went to Metropolis?

 

No, they all grew up in the same orphanage.

 

The only good thing about this show is so many former DC hero movie actors played roles in the series, especially Reeve, Slater and Carter.

There is one thing I worry about the DC movies, they seem to rely on directors too much, both the old Batman 1 and 2 is quite Tim Burton style and the new trilogy is no doubt, Nolanish. I think MoS might have the same problem. So it's hard to mix them together.

 

It's amazing how, in reducing a ~200-hour series into three snarky sentences, you've distilled a completely inaccurate summary of the show. Clark was not angst-ridden or alienated from his peers; he was surrounded by people who loved him and enjoyed the full bloom of youthful popularity. Nor was Oliver Queen, who was already a successful and charismatic CEO when his character was introduced. No angst, no alienation.

But okay, you disliked the show and you enjoy inventing criticisms to justify that dislike. It's okay with me! Some people don't like cheeseburgers. Me, I love 'em.

 

Didn't Saintheart make that exact same point on the first page of the thread?

Anyway, Nolan is producing MoS, so thematically it should be at least similar to the DK trilogy. That being said, there's no way that the Nolanverse Bats would ever feel at home in a JLA movie. Having full-on superheroes and aliens show up would throw the entire thing completely out of whack. So even with Nolan's influence on MoS, I think it won't be so much hard to mix them together as impossible.

 

No, not at all. Lex was there from the beginning; he was a kid when the kryptonite meteor shower happened as Clark's ship came in for a (crash) landing. It's how he lost his hair! Lex's presence and friendship with Clark were essential elements of the series from early-on.

Lois came in as Chloe (Clark's best friend)'s cousin in, I think, Season 3 or 4. They worked together at the Planet later, after Clark moved to the big city.

 

I'm not talking about the show, I meant in Superman's original comics history

 

D'oh!

Hmm. Well, Silver Age continuity includes Lex and Clark knowing each other in Smallville, too. So, either "no" or "it depends on which continuity/age".

 

I don't think Nolan's Batman fit JL well, but reboot Batman so soon is worse.

 

Batman doesn't need a reboot, just put him in a movie -- Superman, JLA, whatever -- without any explanation, in a new suit and with a new actor, and audiences will hardly bat an eye.

Get it? "BAT" an eye?

 

They did it in the 90s with Batman movies, they can do it again (hopefully better this time)