Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by merrick97

I think it is much easier to create a believable threat for the Avengers than the Justice League.

Well, somehow the Justice League comics have been managing to come up with threats for them for decades now. Whether those threats have a credibility to your standard, I don't know, but clearly any failings in that department haven't been enough to derail all of the Justice League properties any more than the Avengers ones. So, maybe a Justice League movie wouldn't work for you, but I don't know what gives you the idea that it wouldn't work at all.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by merrick97

I love DC Comics, but I have always felt they work much better as individual superheroes and not as a group. In Marvel I felt it works better, but I still prefer them as individuals. Marvel is actually guilty of doing WAY too many crossovers.

Marvel editorial seems to be more about pimping the product for the most $$.
DC editorial seems to be about creating a cohesive, organic, and maturing universe.

The last Marvel run I honestly enjoyed was Morrison on X-men.
Of course I haven't read anything for a few years.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Well, somehow the Justice League comics have been managing to come up with threats for them for decades now. Whether those threats have a credibility to your standard, I don't know, but clearly any failings in that department haven't been enough to derail all of the Justice League properties any more than the Avengers ones. So, maybe a Justice League movie wouldn't work for you, but I don't know what gives you the idea that it wouldn't work at all.

IGN sums up my views quite nicely.
http://comics.ign.com/articles/115/1159127p1.html

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

Marvel editorial seems to be more about pimping the product for the most $$.
DC editorial seems to be about creating a cohesive, organic, and maturing universe.

The last Marvel run I honestly enjoyed was Morrison on X-men.
Of course I haven't read anything for a few years.

On DC I really only like Batman and Superman. They have always been my favorites and always will be. I havent paid much attention to anything else. I do have the Sandman ABsolute Editions. I have heard nothing but good things about Geoff Johns Green Lantern run though. I hope that the movie is good and will expose Green Lantern to a wider audience similar to the way the Iron Man films made Iron Man a bigger Marvel character.

Ed Brubaker's Captain America run is fantastic. I would very much recommend checking that out if you want something good from Marvel.
Hickmans Fantastic Four run is also supposedly one of the best runs to come out of Marvel in years. Most of Brubakers run has been collected in 3 omnibus.

Matt Fractions Immortal Iron Fist run was great, too.

In regards to liking the superhero or not, my response is that the right writer can make ANY superhero interesting.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by merrick97

IGN sums up my views quite nicely.
http://comics.ign.com/articles/115/1159127p1.html

I certainly get what that article is saying about the JLA movie idea, in the abstract, but I don't really see anything it's saying that doesn't also apply with more-or-less equal measure to the Avengers movie.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I certainly get what that article is saying about the JLA movie idea, in the abstract, but I don't really see anything it's saying that doesn't also apply with more-or-less equal measure to the Avengers movie.

The Avengers has been built up to and will use the same characters and will take place in the same universe as the other Marvel films made by marvel studios.

The Justice League film as current rumors put will be all new with no connection to any current film.

Big difference. WAY big difference.

AND. We still dont know if an Avengers movie will work, but at least Marvel is taking the right approach by building up to it. Although Iron man 2 suffered because of that build up.

However, a lot can happen between now and when Warner decides to shoot the film. If they decide to.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by merrick97

The Avengers has been built up to and will use the same characters and will take place in the same universe as the other Marvel films made by marvel studios.

The Justice League film as current rumors put will be all new with no connection to any current film.

Big difference. WAY big difference.

Really?

The Avengers is going to have a new Hulk, an unfamiliar-to-the-non-fan Hawkeye, and an as-yet-untested Captain America and Thor. That potentially leaves an awful lot riding on the shoulders of Iron Man, whose last effort had a lukewarm reception.

Meanwhile, all this set-up you describe has so far amounted to a couple of tacked on instances of Samuel Jackson showing up to say, "Hey- something's going to happen later."

By the time this JLA movie shows up, assuming it does, they may have established Green Lantern, re-established Superman and Batman and brought Wonder Woman back into in the public awareness by way of the upcoming TV series.

Chart those scenarios against each other and, to me at least, they don't really sound that different in terms of amount of "set-up" nor amount of risk in the undertaking.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

By the time this JLA movie shows up, assuming it does, they may have established Green Lantern, re-established Superman and Batman and brought Wonder Woman back into in the public awareness by way of the upcoming TV series.

Yes, and they have said they WONT HAVE CONNECTIONS to the current movies, meaning that it WONT be ryan Reynolds as Green Lantern, Christian Bale as Batman, or Henry Cavill as Superman. They have said it will be the directors "own thing" that is what current rumors are.

Originally Posted by IGN

A Justice League film that brings together the established cinematic heroes is one thing, but a movie that introduces all new cast members and characters is another. It's a disservice to the actors and filmmakers involved with the established franchises but more importantly, it's a disservice to the characters themselves. It's certainly nothing new to have different actors in the same roles, or even different versions running concurrently, but the intrinsic appeal of the Justice League is that it's a team-up on an epic scale.

I could not agree more with the above quote.




Yes, the Avengers film will suffer very much if the Thor and Captain America films arent very good. However, they look GREAT so far.

Again a lot can change between now and then if they decide to make the film.

[SpaceDog]

Although "gee whiz" I think it's NEAT that Marvel is blending their on screen universe - I don't mind the WB/DC approach at all. After all - JUSTICE LEAGUE the comic tends to have different writers and artists than BATMAN, SUPERMAN, WONDER WOMAN, etc.
I myself don't mind the idea of self-contained stories within the film universe.
I think Batman and Batman returns were CANON in the Tim Burton Batman universe, and I think Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are CANON in the Christopher Nolan Batman universe. I don't require them to mesh.
Of course in this instance - we're talking across decades - but I think the same could be done concurrently.
Brandon Routh and Tom Welling were never at odds with one another for me.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

After all - JUSTICE LEAGUE the comic tends to have different writers and artists than BATMAN, SUPERMAN, WONDER WOMAN, etc.

Exactly. If these concurrent different incarnations/conceptions are a "disservice" to the characters in the realm of film, why has DC/Warner been applying that approach (to some success, you might say) in every other medium for the entirety of these characters' existences?

Doesn't seem like a "disservice" to me; just business-as-usual.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

That potentially leaves an awful lot riding on the shoulders of Iron Man, whose last effort had a lukewarm reception.

In what country are generally favorable reviews and a $312 million USA ($638 million worldwide total) gross "lukewarm"?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

In what country are generally favorable reviews and a $312 million USA ($638 million worldwide total) gross "lukewarm"?

Well, the last time I checked, "generally favorable" and "lukewarm" were pretty synonymous just about everywhere. As far as grosses go, it opened big on expectation, but picked up a lot less repeat business than the first one did. Hopes were higher for repeat business and general grosses, as well. This is not some outlier theory of mine. Take a look around the internet and I think you'll find "lukewarm" a pretty accurate description.

[Tetsuo27]

How much did it cost to develop the blu-ray technology and have the investors made their return? What is the profit on discs?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Well, the last time I checked, "generally favorable" and "lukewarm" were pretty synonymous just about everywhere. As far as grosses go, it opened big on expectation, but picked up a lot less repeat business than the first one did. Hopes were higher for repeat business and general grosses, as well. This is not some outlier theory of mine. Take a look around the internet and I think you'll find "lukewarm" a pretty accurate description.

I disagree. General consensus is that people liked it.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I disagree. General consensus is that people liked it.

I agree, too. They liked it, but not many people LOVED it like they did the first one. lukewarm to me is mediocre-to-decent.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I disagree. General consensus is that people liked it.

Then you don't disagree. Yes, people liked it- they were generally kinda lukewarm on it.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Because the Avengers aren't a bunch of beings with godlike powers (Thor somewhat exception). They are all humans with some special abilities who can be killed and therefore creating a story involving peril might actually work on the big screen.

I think it is much easier to create a believable threat for the Avengers than the Justice League.

I love DC Comics, but I have always felt they work much better as individual superheroes and not as a group. In Marvel I felt it works better, but I still prefer them as individuals. Marvel is actually guilty of doing WAY too many crossovers.

The JLA comic works just fine with all the DC superheroes together... Especially when Grant Morrison is helming it. I'd certainly be interested in seeing an epic JLA story onscreen. Is it a different kind of storytelling than Marvel's? Of course. But I don't see why it couldn't work, if done by the right people. Maybe it wouldn't connect with the mainstream, I'm not necessarily arguing that - but as an existing fan, I think it'd be really interesting.

[Constitution 101]

Expectations would be high considering where the bar's been set(due to the recent Batman movies). But yes, if done well it would be VERY interesting...

[micks_address]

Id agree with the good doctor here.. i felt really let down by Iron Man 2.. had much higher hopes for it.. in sort of the way the Dark Knight stepped up from Batman Begins.. and i wouldnt quote box office takings as proof of something being good.. how much did Transformers revenge of the fallen make?.... even the actors/director agree that it was a poor effort..

i think the main problem with Iron Man 2 is that they underused Mickey Rourke and his character was just silly in it.. they could have made him much more menacing.. of course when you read the stories of how they made iron man 2 in terms of scripting etc and trying to capture the 'magic in the bottle' they did for the first one.. its easy to understand why it didnt quite hit the mark

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Then you don't disagree. Yes, people liked it- they were generally kinda lukewarm on it.

[Jeff Kleist]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo27

How much did it cost to develop the blu-ray technology and have the investors made their return? What is the profit on discs?

A Lot

Probably depends on the investor, obviously Panasonic or Sony have a lot more ground to make up than a smaller partner

Depends on what's on them, what the extras package is, how much they spend on advertising and other support. You can make a Blu-ray for $4-5,000, or you can make it for $4-500,000. Both have happened.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

A Lot

Probably depends on the investor, obviously Panasonic or Sony have a lot more ground to make up than

Depends on what's on them, what the extras package is, how much they spend on advertising and other support. You can make a Blu-ray for $4-5,000, or you can make it for $4-500,000. Both have happened.

Right now we can expect to see discs that reflect the lower end of that cost. I honestly don't think we need to see all those crazy special features that lead to long loading times and frankly stuff that no one ever uses. Give me deleted scenes, commentaries and making of documentaries. I dont want all these fancy long loading menus.