Amph Waiting For Superman: Gunnverse DCU/Elseworlds

Sure, that would be fun. But I think you're expecting solo films from WW and Flash first, and I disagree with that plan. It's too Marvel. What worked for them -- lightning in a bottle and all that -- might not work for DC.

JLA should (IMHO) come after MOS2 and before any other solo films. See how WW plays on the big screen, tweak that and maybe follow up with a WW movie. Then go on to do MOS3, JLA2 and take it from there. The opposite of the Marvel model, because DC is distinct and different and should be treated more carefully, cautiously and intelligently.

 

Not even remotely relevant.

 

I think WW should get one before JL because she's part of the big three and it would not wise to put her in MoS2 like Black Widow in Iron Man 2 because of her power and background is too much for such a supporting role, we also got the hint of Kara. Flash could wait later.

 

I doubt she'd get her own solo movie first. Best bet would be to have a Trinity movie introduce her with her as the focus. Superman isn't good against magic and Batman isn't familiar with it so she can take the lead with the trio.

 

It would be awful if even one of the big three could not get a solo, and Marvel are planning for so many 2nd tier heroes' solo.

 

Well, as I've said to you before: what a pity none of those "so many" second tier types have a penis. If Marvel Studios itself doesn't have sufficient guts to put a female superhero as the lead on a screen, why should Warner Bros feel they need to take the risk?

 

Slowpokeking, I will pass your feedback onto the Vice President of Hollywood, who is a family friend.

Can I just ask the opinion of the forum, and ask that only those capable of donning their thinking caps respond - which film adaptation of a comic book came closest to its source?

The film can be arse-clenchingly bad; it's how close the character on screen got to the character in the books.

I am asking here because honestly, I don't think there's been a true Batman on screen but the Chris Reeve Superman from Superman: The Movie, is spot on in my opinion.

 

Marvel didn't even have a heroine who is that famous like WW, especially most of the popular Marvel ones almost never had their own solo comic(Sue, Emma, Storm), even Ms Marvel is not close.

Sure previous superheroine movies failed, but that's mostly due to the script, the male leading movies around that time (Superman III&IV, Batman 3&4, Daredevil) are also poorly received. The old WW TV series had quite good ratings, so I think it's worth a try. It's for the whole project of Justice League.

 

I'd have to concur on Chris Reeve being about as close as you'll get to Silver Age Superman. I've not seen George Reeves in the part, but I suspect they'd be pretty close to the Golden Age version Reserving judgment on the Snyderman until the sequel comes out.

As for Batman, I think the Nolanbat is about as close as Hollywood is ever going to get to a Frank Miller Dark Knight Returns Batman ... aaaaand by definition the 1966 Batman comes extremely close to the new '66 Batman comic that's out

 

Nolanbat gets the dichotomy right; Batman isn't something Bruce Wayne becomes, but rather Bruce Wayne is something Batman becomes. But he would never have taken 8 years off after 2 years of being a crime fighter.

 

I suppose it depends on the motivation. Miller's Batman is gone for a good ten years or more, implicitly because of Jason Todd's death with no other justification. It's a pity TDKR tried to sandwich in too many good Batman stories into one film when they could've just adapted one of them well.

 

Yeah, I know TDKR's Batman has 10 years off before coming back at age 54 or so be the Bat.

However...

This is after nearly 20 years of crime fighting. Not 2.

Pretty pissweak obsession if you can stop after such a short space of time...

 

Would you want to be seen as a poor man's Avengers, if your team was better, old, and more awesome?

Their reservation about doing anything until they have the best script is, in my view, the right choice.

 

In passing, I did rather like the old TV series of The Flash. My memory's faded a bit of it, but it seemed to capture the character pretty well. The costume, at least, was awesome and held true to the comic, anyways.

 

I hope JL doesn't use a Superman/Batman villain to avoid too much focus on these two.

It was really awesome, too bad it got cancelled.

 

There was no commitment with Iron Man, though. It was a little after the credits bumper. A tiny little wink to the audience. There was no promise of The Avengers, and there certainly wasn't any obligation.

 

And we still were not told why didn't SHIELD show up to stop AIM in Iron Man3.

 

Dawson's Dad was the Flash. It got very samey and just seemed to involve a plethora of motorcycle gangs until Luke Jokewalker turned up and annoyed him.

 

You're missing the point, though. In Nolan's universe, Batman has an end-game; in the comics, he can't. We are perpetually watching a... 30 year old dude fight crime forever. The only reason he has any real age on him at all is because of the robins (If Dick is... at least early 20s... Batman has to be... early 30s). And this is necessary. Fear of change and love of the character will keep Bruce Wayne as Batman as long as there is money to be made off the concept, which will probably be as long as super-hero comics exist.

Two years of going out every night (as it is never otherwise portrayed in the movies) and kicking butt across a city is insane. It's no wonder he was ready to hang it up as soon as possible. Nolan's universe is grounded in reality (or it at least leans towards it more than what could and would be). Bruce Wayne, in Nolan's universe, is not insane. He wants to restore Gotham to order, not be Batman. Batman is the means to an end. 2 years accomplished that goal. It was unnecessary for him to continue and actually would have impeded the order he established, not very Batmany.

I have yet to see Superman all the way through, but I have to say... Amazing Spider-Man, if you look past the obvious liberties, gets what I think is great about Spider-Man. Tobey's Spidey had a solid grip on the character, too, but, for my taste, that franchise was entirely too self-conscious. ASM was brilliantly free.

But this raises the question of what does it mean to remain true/close to the character/property/idea? Is it the ethereal soul of the art, that grows and changes and regresses and evolves over the course of 50-75 years? Is it making sure to hit the exact notes that are widely accepted about the character right now? Is it to take what makes the character great and build and focus and draw out a story that touches hearts and minds?

Because from a certain perspective Avengers is very close to the feel of every team-up I've ever read. On the other hand, it plays loose with the central characters often (I'm always angry? and their cap is just not my cap. mostly. )

Anyway, before I ramble on a storm, props to the defense of Batman 1989. It is a brilliant film in many levels (not without flaws) and manages to do what few 1st movies do... hero in costume asap... and executes that extremely well. It gives the audience the credit to take the universe at face value, and not baby step them up to the stuff we came to see. That said, origins are fun to see explicitly, but boy I wish a few more films would take this gamble. And then it got the whole movie to explore the psychotic(?) dualistic nature of Batman. I'd say it did in one movie what the dark knight took three to do in exploring the soul of the Bat.

edit: and JLA (I know many support this idea because it's obvious) should take a page out of 89's book. And don't even worry about the actors being the same. DC should approach JLA like they've successfully approached Batman and Superman in this new era for them: make THIS movie WELL. Don't worry about the rest (not that it's not good to have a bigger plan). I