'Justice League' finds a villain as Warner keeps aping Marvel's playbook
Is it really as simple as 'do whatever 'The Avengers' did'?
Darkseid, seen here at the end of 'The Avengers,' is... wait, I think I'm confused about something.
Are you a fan of Motion Captured?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
I have a serious question for the team that Warner Bros. is putting together on what will no doubt be one of their biggest films of 2015: do you really want to spend the next two and a half year basically riding Marvel's tail, imitating every move they make, or do you want to start building a stand-alone film universe in which you can do almost anything?
I ask because right now, Warner Bros. is setting itself up for a fall. They are making choices that look from the outside to be made out of a kind of corporate fear instead of setting the stage for themselves in a way that will both excite fans and invite in new viewers. They are dealing with several different factors that seem to be causing this potentially-costly poor decision making, and they need to carefully consider what they're doing before they commit to things.
According to Latino Review this morning, Darkseid will be the threat that will unite Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, the Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter and more, and if that's true, then more than ever before, it looks like they really are trying to do exactly the same thing "The Avengers" did, but skipping all the carefully-laid groundwork that made it so exciting when "The Avengers" finally happened. Darkseid is the ruler of Apokolips, and he has consistently proven himself to be one of the biggest threats in the DC Universe.
He's almost a direct one-for-one correlation to Thanos in the Marvel Universe, too, and while "The Avengers" played it smart by using the entire first film as a mere tease of what is coming in the sequel, only revealing Thanos in the final moments as he finally turned to show his face, DC and Warner seem to want to jump right in and bring out Darkseid in the first film.
This is in addition to introducing all the characters in the film and establishing a world where they might all overlap and be called together. Based on the way fandom convulsed last week when we revealed the plan to tie the Nolanverse, established so carefully over the course of the three Batman films, into the Justice League via Joseph Gordon-Levitt playing his character from "The Dark Knight Rises," it seems like Warner's efforts to play it safe might backfire on them in a major way. No one's laid eyes on "Man Of Steel" yet, or even the new trailer for the film that arrives in theaters in a few weeks, but Warner is gambling that the tone that film establishes is a tone they'll be able to carry through to "Justice League." They screwed it up with "Green Lantern" last year, which was supposed to be their introduction to all of this, and so they're already having to make one major course correction. But it seems like they're assuming that because Nolan's films worked for Batman, that same exact tone is going to work for all their other characters as well, and that's a dangerous gamble for them to make.
It's a shame. Warner has this amazing catalog of characters to play with, yet they have historically proven themselves to be almost completely incompetent when it comes to figuring out how to bring those characters to life in a way that connects with audiences and that works on film. They actually quit making Superman films at one point, selling the rights off to Cannon Films, because they botched it so spectacularly with "Superman III." Talk about a sign that a company has no faith in their own abilities or the genre. That was a different age, though, and they have so much more going for them at this point. Superhero films work. Audiences are willing to accept the biggest, most outrageous parts of these stories as long as they're well-told. But when you're doing this sort of thing, there has to be something sincere about it. The Marvel movies worked because there was a feeling, film to film, that they were having a blast, that they were giddy from seeing these characters walking and talking and fighting, and the casting seemed to be smart, unexpected, paying off consistently in terms of audience affection.
"The Avengers" wasn't just a standard-issue blockbuster… it was the fulfillment of a five-year promise that Marvel made to audiences. "Justice League" is something that the studio has been trying to make for a while now, but considering their batting average with their superhero properties, it seems imprudent to push all their chips into the table while imitating someone else's successful moves.
I want to enjoy a "Justice League" film when it finally arrives. I want to see these icons brought to life in a fun and smart way. I want Warner Bros. to create this universe successfully because there is so much room for them to let filmmakers do some fun and smart things in the years ahead.
But you've already screwed up the return of Superman once. You have proven just how bad Superman films can get. You turned down a perfectly good Joss Whedon "Wonder Woman" script and a better-than-good Laeta Kalogridis draft, but you let David E. Kelly make a horrifyingly stupid TV version that bordered on sitcom. You made a wildly expensive Green Lantern film that looked like it did everything right from the trailers, but that just laid there, totally inert, a mess of tone and ambition. I want Warner Bros. to get this all right…
… but what reason do I have to believe they will?
"Justice League" is still aiming for a 2015 release. God help us all.
News From Our Partners
-
Weekly Ketchup: Fox and Marvel Both Courting Quicksilver for Comic Blockbusters
Critics Consensus: Fast & Furious 6 is Certified Fresh
Red Carpet Photos with Vin Diesel, Michelle Rodriguez, Gina Carano and More
-
Demi Lovato Is Thrilled That Her Voice Is Finally Being Heard on Radio [Video]
One Direction's Niall Horan Spends the Night With UK TV Star Louise Thompson
Kelly Clarkson Denies 'American Idol' Judging Gig
-
Mega Man X Trailer: The Blue Bomber Busts His Way to Wii U Next Week
The Wrap Up: Charlie Sheen Gets a New Name For 'Machete Kills'
New 'Man of Steel' TV Spot: "Why Did You Send Me Here?"
-
Babble.com: 8 Parenting Lessons To Learn From 'Arrested Development'
WATCH: New 'Arrested' Clip You Probably Haven't Seen
What Is Up With Rob Lowe's Face? The Actor On His Crazy 'Candelabra' Role
-
Cannes Film Festival: Cannes 2013, Day Ten: The big wrap-up, including Jim Jarmusch's fantastic vampire film
Hear This: “Second Best” reflects a pivotal moment all serious bands face
Watch This: The wages and the fear remain high in William Friedkin’s Sorcerer
-
What to Watch This Weekend: Orphan Black, Behind the Candelabra, and Arrested Development's Netflix Debut
Do These Four New Arrested Development Clips Get You Excited for the Show's Return? (VIDEO)
Arrested Development Q&A: Alia Shawkat on Maeby, the Return of the Show, and the Canonization of Mitch Hurwitz
-
Baz Luhrmann Passed on Directing 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'
Someone Just Paid $1.5 Million to Sit Next to Leonardo DiCaprio in Space
Tim Curry Is Fine After Suffering a Massive Stroke: Report
-
'Star Wars: Episode VI': What's Its Legacy... And Its Future?
'Arrested Development' Season Four: Eight Things To Remember
'Fast & Furious 6': The Reviews Are In!
Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured
Latest Posts
-
And if so, what does his character name suggest for the future?Saturday, May 25, 2013
-
How long until they discuss another film in this series?Friday, May 24, 2013
-
They can both use the same character, but will it be worth it?Thursday, May 23, 2013
-
Our conversation was an afternoon delightThursday, May 23, 2013


Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login Signupcultstatus
December 3, 2012 at 4:09AM EST Reply to CommentSo what is Batman supposed to do against Darkseid? Throw batarangs at him?
Batman generally serves as a tactician or augments himself in situations like this. Dont forget, Bats has brought Sups to his level and beat his arse multiple times
December 3, 2012 at 4:11AM ESTcultstatus Sounds thrilling. Batman barks orders while everyone else gets to do all the cool shit. I'm sure Batman fans will love it.
December 3, 2012 at 4:23AM EST
the worst thing would be if it's JGL portraying a non Wayne bats. Batman is one of the most intelligent people in the DC universe, a beat cop wouldnt exactly fill those shoes on the team lol.
December 3, 2012 at 4:35AM ESToh and he'd be growling orders :D
cultstatus It was hinted at that JGL is more than just a beat cop. He showed some off some detective skills. And I don't get the JGL has no training/experience as Batman argument. It's not like Justice League is going to take place a week after the events in TDKR.
December 3, 2012 at 4:59AM EST
He's not considered the greatest detective on earth for sure. I dont agree with the extra skills because he was being handled by a couple of street thugs.
December 3, 2012 at 7:03AM ESTsure he can acquire a lot of skills in a few years, but he cant raise his IQ a hundred points. Not to mention that Nolan's batman was too dependent on Fox for him to work in the JLA
Jlaw in the animated feature "Superman Batman Apocalypse" it was Batman that brought Darsied down, not by brute strength but by our maneuvering him in that baatchess fashion that he tends to have. The most brutal and effective weapon that Batman has in his arsenal his is razorsharp mind an the willingness to go all or nothing. Making sure that even if the other side wins they lose.
December 3, 2012 at 2:00PM ESTKaeper That's assuming JGL is playing Batman. NIghtwing would be a more interesting place to go. And much like Avengers did with Cap, they'll play down the strength difference & give him something to punch.
December 3, 2012 at 2:47PM ESTMojo CoCo
December 3, 2012 at 4:10AM EST Reply to CommentI would love to see JGL in a Nolanesque Nightwing movie, but not as batman in freakin Justice League. It'd be much smarter to reboot than retroactively destroy the Nolanverse. Seriously, if all of these heroes existed and Batman had been gone for so long, wouldnt one of them at least try to save Gotham from Bane?
Not to mention that any villain powerful enough to beat down Sups (and there will be at least 3 in MoS) would warrant some type of response from similarly powered being like MMH once Sups was ko'd
stupid. stupid. stupid.
Dan Day
December 3, 2012 at 4:15AM EST Reply to CommentDrew, isn't the final HOBBIT movie out summer 2014? Anyway, you're right. They're rushing this. I bet it's pushed to 2016.
cultstatus
December 3, 2012 at 4:21AM EST Reply to CommentAny idea if Justice League is coming before or after Avengers 2 in 2015? If it's before, I could see it doing well but if it's a few weeks or a month after it might tank pretty hard.
If they miss, it could taint every character for years. I just don't think the risk is worth it. Take your time, and do it right. A Justice League movie is still a big deal in 2020. This isn't some fad that WB has to cash in on right this second.
CLS I think it might be a fad, considering how Marvel is flooding the market over the next two years.
December 3, 2012 at 5:02AM ESTEveryone just assumes that Phase Two is going to work like Phase One. Not to mention, the Marvel films from Sony and Fox are not guaranteed hits.
WB sees the writing on the wall. If Marvel slips with any of their potentially 9 films over the next two years (let alone if half of them aren't good), it could taint the market. People might be done with this genre by then.
Where's the western?
cultstatus I have no doubt comic book movies will eventually go the way of the western but it's not happening in the next 5 years. And Marvel already slipped up with IM2. I think Marvel would have to put up like 3 scrub movies in a row to ruin the goodwill they built up with Phase One.
December 3, 2012 at 5:33AM ESTRev. Slappy Avengers 2 is already scheduled for the first weekend of May 2015. If tradition holds and Star Wars is released for Memorial Day, Disney will be releasing both Avengers and Star Wars within a couple weeks of each other.
December 3, 2012 at 2:42PM ESTRandy of AFTimes
December 3, 2012 at 4:51AM EST Reply to CommentPretty much in agreement with you here.
The idea that its a race to 2015 is problematic from the start, a poor, weak foundation on which to build a franchise.
And you NEED a Wonder Woman movie in order to get to a Justice League movie. You don't want to spend the time to explain characters when you have seven of them... and those are just your leads!
Might as well make it a Guy Gardner Green Lantern to really bring things down.
CLS Problem with this is WB/DC is already being seen as copycats. Why do EXACTLY like Marvel?
December 3, 2012 at 5:04AM ESTHaving Man of Steel as the jump off point for the DC universe is a good idea.
Chris Batty
December 3, 2012 at 5:40AM EST Reply to CommentWB will f it up like they dd with Green Lantern.
FranklynStreet
December 3, 2012 at 6:06AM EST Reply to CommentI love the DC characters, more than the Marvel characters, but I usually seem to be alone in this. I actually wrote a thesis paper back in college about how the Marvel characters are more the man-on-the-street "If I had a super-power" characters, whereas DC's are more iconic, myth-based characters. Kind of like the Greek gods. DC's characters are just more epic, and bigger in scope. But it's easy to mess that up. Both Clash of the Titans and Wrath of the Titans couldn't really make those stories work. The problem here is that with these "bigger" types of characters, you can't really tell the same smaller stories. And when you tell the bigger stories, the balance is much tougher. Batman's a different sort, which is probably why he's the rare DC character who's had two different successful film franchises based on him in the last 25 years-- because Batman is smaller and more scaled-back, a guy with no super-powers operating on ingenuity, raw grit, and sheer determination. And his rogue's gallery (along with Flash's) kind of echoes Spider-Man's, in the sense that their villains are very personal and really help to psychologically reflect the hero's character. But Batman (and Flash) are kind of the exception in the DC universe. Characters like Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter... these are all more epic and operatic. I think it's why they've had trouble getting a Wonder Woman television show going. How do you make that epic scale relatable, and if do you scale it down, you're doing a disservice to the character and you run the risk of whiting out the very thing that defines their character. Arrow seems to be doing pretty well on television right now, but again, that's one of the rarer, man-on-the-street DC characters.
My point here is that a) the balancing act is much more difficult to achieve with a lot of these DC characters than with Marvel's, and b) the Marvel playbook is not going to work, because the characters themselves have their origins in a different type of storytelling. Marvel's are generally more personal stories, whereas DC's built around these larger archetypes. And if you do a JLA movie, you're dealing with a cast that is at least 50% comprised of these larger sorts of archetypes. Thor is a rare example of a character like this in the Marvel Universe, but Marvel was smart to link him to a human persona so that they were able to split the difference. They got to have their cake and eat it too... spending half the time in Asgard and the other half with Donald Blake (or whichever human character took over the role of human host over he years). And the powers that be were smart when they made the Thor movie... they embraced that larger side of the character, and they got Shakespearean wunderkind Branagh to do the honors, and they didn't simply go and ape the style of films like Iron Man or Spider-Man. In fact, that first Thor film really just concentrated on the godlike elements and didn't worry about exploring a human-bound persona. They embraced that character's very different, and more epic-scoped mythology instead of trying to follow the same playbook as their other characters. In fact, Marvel has been very smart in defining the tone of each film separately based on each character, rather than just making imitations once they have a hit. I'm already a little worried that the Man of Steel film is going to be trying too hard to follow Nolan's Batman tone instead of finding a tone that's a more natural extension of the character of Superman himself.
And what's alarming is how little Warner Brothers and DC seem to understand all of this. I think their inability to get a Wonder Woman series off the ground speaks to this. And more pertinently, I think the failure of Green Lantern is a sign of what we can expect. I hate to believe we're going to end up with a crappy JLA movie, but from what we're hearing about how they're approaching building this franchise, I wouldn't be surprised if the JLA film apes the Green Lantern film both in terms of early potential and the eventual missing of the mark altogether.
Vern
December 3, 2012 at 6:17AM EST Reply to CommentI don't get why the conventional wisdom is that they have to make separate movies for each character for it to make sense. When has that ever been done before The Avengers? Never that I can think of, and yet they had movies before, and we were able to see new characters and learn who they were. I never heard of an X-Man before but I was able to enjoy those movies, and I sure as shit don't think it would've been improved by introducing each of them in separate movies.
I mean, I don't have alot of faith in this one, especially if they're doing what Drew says and having Joseph Gordon Levitt as Batman2. But I think that they're not following exactly how Marvel did it is a good thing and should be encouraged.
That said, they coulda made this with George Miller before the Avengers but the internet told them they weren't allowed to because they didn't know who Armie Hammer was at the time.
CLS Completely agree with all of this.
December 3, 2012 at 6:25AM ESTjaketaylor7 Didn't they take the basic plot of the George Miller JL movie and make an animated movie out of it? Speaking of the George Miller JL, wasn't one of the AICN guys writing an article (maybe a book?) about the George Miller Justice League movie at one point? I may have missed it...
December 3, 2012 at 9:28AM ESTAmerican Jedi Avengers would not have been as much fun as it was if that movie was the first time that we were seeing most of those characters onscreen. The special context of it -- the clanging together of different franchises -- gave it a whole extra kind of fun. Sure, DC doesn't HAVE to do that, but I can see why a lot of people would like them to. The rub, though, is that it's only worth doing the Marvel-style long game if you can make the individual movies in a way that the audience is actually excited looking forward to see the characters together. For example, I would have no enthusiasm for seeing the Ryan Reynolds Green Lantern team up with the Christian Bale Batman. That would be joyless.
December 5, 2012 at 12:02AM ESTSo, if they're going to do this, they better make a Flash or Wonder Woman or Aquaman or whoever that we actually want to see team up with Henry Cavill's Superman. Otherwise, why bother?
Kel
December 3, 2012 at 6:51AM EST Reply to CommentThere are no words...WB is one of the most incompetent, inept film studios I have ever seen in my life. Ever. It's so pathetic that it isn't even funny anymore...it's just embarrassing.
I bet the guys over at Marvel at laughing their heads off....this is like a car crash. You just get this terrible feeling in your stomach but you can't turn away. How sad...
CLS Really? Lord of the Rings. Matrix Trilogy. Nolan's Batman Trilogy and Inception. Harry Potter Series. Eastwood's output.
December 3, 2012 at 8:23AM ESTWB's probably been the most director friendly of any of the studios over the last decade. In the last two years or so, they've stumbled a bit. But, from '99 to the present, find me another more director friendly studio.
kel Yes really. What does being director-friendly have to do with it? I mean, they're still failing on the superhero front.
December 4, 2012 at 12:39AM ESTWere you even thinking when you typed this? Lord of the Rings was not WB, it was New Line. WB owned them but they operated by themselves, sort of like how Marvel is still a separate entity. Disney just owns them and is the money, but have almost no creative input. One down.
Matrix Trilogy - WB had a leash on the Wachowskis for the first film and that turned out well. How did number two or three go? Yeah, the execs weren't smart enough to say something when they actually had to and the audience received two of the most self-important films in the past two decades. Oops! Too bad people didn't enjoy those ones. Two down.
Nolan - The Dark Knight trilogy ended on a sour note because they simply gave Nolan too much freedom. Inception is decent but that's all because of Nolon, it had nothing to do with WB. They just gave him money and free reign. For Inception, it worked. For TDKR, it didn't. The execs are still morons. Three down.
The Harry Potter series were not director friendly...they used several different directors and asked all of them to keep the films short. Or as short as possible, again, this affected HP3 and HP5 the most I would wager. Four down.
Eastwood's output has been decent only because of Eastwood. Now you may say the execs are smart for leaving Eastwood alone, but that's like not interrupting a painter when he's working. It's common sense. Five down.
In the last two years, they've stumbled a bit? UH....Superman Returns was released in 2006 and the fans said it was a piece of trash, which it was. Routh was a terrible choice. Green Lantern was awful, it was so boring. WB has no idea on how to handle their superhero properties which is what the article is referring to. That's what I meant, but as a whole who's doing better right now? Marvel/Disney or DC/WB? Yeah, answer that question to yourself and shut your mouth. WB and its bean counters are clueless. Do they even like films?
Steve Kel, in nearly all of your rebuttals your assertion that the films mentioned were somehow failures on WBs part are unsubstantiated. All of the films mentioned with the exception of Matrix: Revolutions were well received and were successful at the Box Office.
December 4, 2012 at 12:53PM ESTThey have not handled their superhero franchises well with the exception of Nolan's Batman movies, but that was not the point you were originally making.
Nice try though.
Shawn
December 3, 2012 at 10:30AM EST Reply to CommentI have to agree, Drew. In 2015, if a city is being attacked by aliens and the League shows up to save the day against Darkseid...I'll leave the theater. I hope they come up with an exciting and different way to put all these characters on screen.
johnnyrocket
December 3, 2012 at 11:57AM EST Reply to CommentWell Drew, my first reaction to the Thanos reveal last summer was that it was a deliberate FU to Warners... The Avengers have a far better rogues gallery than the Justice League.. They could have gone in so many other directions such as Kang.. or Ultron putting the team (and Tony) at odds with technology.. and lots of robots for Hulk to smash.. (Which I actually thought would have been a better playground for Whedon anyway) ..or even a half dozen other space threats. But they went with Thanos who's a direct analogue for DC's biggest bad guy. And considering Marvel borrowed from the Justice League origins of both comics and the animated series by making an alien invasion the center piece of the team gathering? Thanos was icing on the FU cake.. It's a valid point that Warners will seem like copy cats.. But really, what choices do they have? Where can Warners go from that without looking derivative to Avengers in the eyes of the general public? A global conspiracy and power grab by Vandal Savage is the closest alternative I could think of that would translate to the big screen; but haven't they already touched on some of that with Ras Al Ghul in the Dark Knight movies?... And something like Secret Society or Legion of Doom is far too costly in acting talent.. and there's been no build for it.. Yep, Warners is stuck between a Starro and a hard place..
Blakeyes Justice leaugue has enough villains
December 3, 2012 at 12:52PM ESTHyperclan,Omacs,amazo.elcipso,appelexians etc.
Heck if they went wih Hyperclan that wld be a great FU to Marvels skrulls.Youd also have a global conspiracy with the Hyperclan posing as key Government figures around the world.And no it wouldnt be like Ras al hul in the movies.Its a global conspiacy that wld be years in play.
Ron Going the Hyperclan route WONT be an FU to Marvel as the Chitauri, the Ultimate version of the Skrulls, already appeared on the Avengers movie.
December 13, 2012 at 12:52PM ESTJeff
December 3, 2012 at 12:39PM EST Reply to CommentYou nailed every concern I had over this movie, particularly the concern with what the tone is going to be. If the tone of the Nolan Batman movies has been carried over into Man of Steel and expected again to carry over into a Justice League movie, that right there could be disastrous. What worked well for a dark gritty character like Batman and in the self-contained world that the Nolan movies clearly were meant to be, will likely not work well with characters that have little in common with Batman. I'm not saying that you can't ground these characters in some sort of reality; Marvel has done that very well themselves with their movies. But it has to make sense with the nature of the characters. Wonder Woman in a Batman-Nolan-esque tone is unlikely to work well.
The other point you made that hit home with me is the ineptitude of Warner to take these properties and make good movies with them. I think it goes deeper than just general incompetence. In my opinion, Warner just doesn't believe in comic book movies. They know they can make spectacular amounts of money, but that's all they really believe in. Why is it that it took them so, so long to bring Superman back to the big screen? They initially were going to let Tim Burton do it, and why? Warner probably said, "Oh he made a successful Batman movie, he can do this too", without the slightest notion of whether it made sense. We almost had Nicholas Cage as Superman as a result. For that matter, as you said, why the trouble with Wonder Woman? The Green Lantern movie? Why haven’t they developed other properties like the Flash? They could have at any point in the last 20 years or more, but it’s like they groped about in the dark when the door handle to the closet they were in was right within the reach.
It’s not just Warner; other studios are guilty of it too. That’s why Marvel couldn’t get a decent movie adaptation made until they took control of their properties themselves. They believe in their characters, found filmmakers who believe in them too, and gave them the blueprint to make the movies we always want to see. That’s what missing at Warner: a champion who will shepherd these properties along.
Sorry for the long winded tirade, but I’m like you: I want Warner to get it right.
Mulderism
December 3, 2012 at 12:42PM EST Reply to CommentMarvel Studios was very ballsy. They decided with Iron Man 1 that they were going to lay the groundwork for a Avengers movie. They mapped out all their films and release dates before they even had a cast, director or even a script. To their credit it worked. They have been successful crowd-pleasers and made a profit but I'd still argue their movies are average. Iron Man 1 is still the best of the lot IMHO. I've enjoyed the X-Men, Spider-Man and Dark Knight movies more than the Marvel Studio films. Don't get me wrong - I like the Marvel Studio films but I like the other ones more.
Paraphrasing something I wrote last week about a JL movie:
I looked up all the box office tallies last week and the results were interesting. The biggest individual hero franchises are Batman ($2.46B) and Spider-Man ($3.25B). All the Marvel Studios films from IM1 to Avengers grossed $3.80B. All the X-Men films (including Wolverine and XM:FC) grossed $1.89B.
Moneywise Avengers was greater than the sum of its parts.
Superman has the potential to be as big a hit as Batman due to being the most famous superhero of all time. WB should focus on making it as big a hit as they can and develop other individual franchises (Flash, Wonder Woman, GL). But if they want to do a JL movie down the line then they will have to lay the groundwork now. I just hope that they don't mow down Nolan's work in the process.
Blakeyes
December 3, 2012 at 12:47PM EST Reply to CommentTo clarify the jgl as Batman rumour has been shot down so we can breathe sigh of relief
However this is just dumb.They are setting up themeslves for more unfavorable avengers comparisons with choosing a thanos like villain. Dont they have brains?Look there are other Jl villains that are just as big.
Hyperclan,Omacs,etc Why Cockblock themselves with Darkseid
Blakeyes
December 3, 2012 at 12:47PM EST Reply to Commenthis is just dumb.They are setting up themeslves for more unfavorable avengers comparisons with choosing a thanos like villain. Dont they have brains?Look there are other Jl villains that are just as big.
Hyperclan,Omacs,etc Why Cockblock themselves with Darkseid
Stinkythecat Is there a single person out there who did not see this coming.
December 3, 2012 at 1:18PM ESTDoctor Tom Because that's who Geoff Johns used as the baddie to launch the New 52 version of the Justice League and bring them together? They'll probably follow that arc for the first movie (though probably with less emphasis on Green Lantern)
December 3, 2012 at 3:31PM ESTFastbak
December 3, 2012 at 1:38PM EST Reply to CommentI really hope they get Michael Ironside to do the voice. He was so great as Darkseid in the Superman and Justice League animated series.
blue_flames
December 3, 2012 at 1:52PM EST Reply to Comment"… but what reason do I have to believe they will?"
I'm gonna go with, like the rest of us, unfortunately, none whatsoever.
Mark
December 3, 2012 at 2:24PM EST Reply to CommentThis is all very sad. It is doomed by a number of apparently rushed decisions.
Fistly, and maybe "worstly" -- Thanos was created as a straight ahead rip-off of Darkseid, so blatant that it really should not go without saying. "Correlation" implies that Kirby's genius creation is in some way not the direct model for Jim Starlin's carbon copy. The Avengers getting to the movies with Thanos first dooms Darkseid to always be seen as coming second. Ah well.
That said, as magnificent as Darkseid was in Kirby's hands-- he is nothing without the set-up of the New Gods and Mister Miracle-- characters that give Darkseid depth, grandeur, and majesty.
If he just shows up to threaten Earth and fight the JLA, he might as well just be "Doomsday".
Premature ejaculation-- it's a horrible affliction and it looks like WB's got it.
matthew
December 3, 2012 at 3:02PM EST Reply to CommentIf Warner Bros stays the track they are on they are going to badly mess up a Justice League movie. Despite the huge comic book fad going on in movies, Warner Bros (who owns DC) has failed to get a majority of their signature properties off the ground. In the past few decades they have only done Batman and Superman and have wound up botching both big time at different points. They also did one Green Lantern movie last year that was a huge bust.
Its obvious that they only want to do a JL movie to cash in on the success from The Avengers. But its destined to be a bust. You can't throw in 5-6 of DC's signature characters and just have the story make sense and have each character work. That is why the stand alone films were so important for Marvel. You got to build on each character which made it work cause you were never going to have time in a 2.5 hour movie for a half dozen characters to be introduced and make us care about them which is why they made solo movies that did it before that.
If they did solo movies and took their time it would probably work out. Yeah, they might not get a JL movie for 5-6 years but the pay off would be huge. Warners is doing the exact opposite of what Marvel did. They are thinking short term. Not surprising though considering Warners track record with DC movies.
Logo Lou
December 3, 2012 at 3:49PM EST Reply to CommentWarner Bros is totally clueless when it comes to their DC comics movies, particularly, as it has been said multiple times before, when their very own animation department has been doing wonderful work with these character for YEARS that the fans have almost universally loved. How many times can we scream "give it to THEM!" before they listen?
Beef Supreme
December 3, 2012 at 4:29PM EST Reply to CommentHow are they aping Marvel? Marvel created a connected universe through their movies, DC doesn't seem to be doing that at all as far as I can tell (except maybe with ONE movie, Man of Steel, and a spin-off like rumored appearance by JGL in JL)), so how are they being copycats?
As far as presenting all the characters in one movie - all I can say is "Watchmen". Whatever flaws that movie had (I happened to think it didn't have that many, and I'm a long time fan of the comic), it wasn't the way it handled the multiple characters they dealt with. Another example would be the X-Men movies, especially the second, as someone mentioned already in the comments.
A competent screenwriter should be able to fairly easily get a good script together in this regard, especially when you're dealing with characters that really need very little introduction to begin with.
Shawn Nicely presented. I personally was disappointed by Watchmen (I read the comic multiple times before viewing the movie, and held it in high regards in my heart.) But some things I DID LIKE about the movie where character development and juggling multiple storylines. IF WB really wants to, and they can go to JL but they need a great screenwriter.
December 3, 2012 at 5:20PM ESTloogenhausen
December 3, 2012 at 4:32PM EST Reply to CommentIn order to make this different from Marvel and just plain fun, they need to just go ahead and have the JLA fight the Legion of Doom. Luthor, Mr. Freeze, Professor Zoom, Cheetah, Black Manta. Make it happen. No one wants to see the origin of Mirror Master or Metallo, they just want to see them doing crazy badass things on screen. The JLA forms in order to stop a negative version of themselves. Instant franchise, and you set it up for a more cosmic threat in Darkseid or Doomsday or heck even frickin' Starro later on.
Beef Supreme Yeah! Maybe they can get Arnold to reprise his role as Mr Freeze.
December 3, 2012 at 4:37PM EST.... :o
joe35
December 3, 2012 at 6:28PM EST Reply to CommentThey didn't screw anything up with "Green Lantern." I thought it was just fine, certain better than either of the Iron Man movies.
kel You are a complete moron....that is all.
December 3, 2012 at 6:42PM ESTBigAl6ft6
December 3, 2012 at 7:31PM EST Reply to CommentWhen I was reading Geoff Johns / Jim Lee's "Justice League" relaunch first arc, it screamed "adapt me as a movie!!" The Avengers is vaguely similar-ish to the first 12 issues of "The Ultimates" but not really. However, if I had to place my bets, I'm gonna assume that this movie will stick quite closer to Johns' "Justice League" arc.
Max
December 3, 2012 at 8:20PM EST Reply to CommentIf they're really planning to do this, they need to forget the Nolan films completely and just do BATMAN! Anyone notice anything about "Rises"? It was hardly a Batman movie at all. Nolan never understood Batman and instead opted for some dumbass alternate reality version that largely ignored everything about that made the character great to show Bruce sitting around, whining about some limp faced bitch he couldn't get over. Nolan's Batman films are largely overrated failures. They're got some good performances, but lets face it, no one has ever gotten Batman right on screen. Recast Batman, THEN JUST FOLLOW HIS CURRENT INCARNATION IN THE FUCKING COMICS! HOW HARD IS THAT?!!? Stop all this 'real world' bullshit. This is DC for fuck's sake. There is nothing even remotely 'real world' about their universe. Stop fucking it up by insisting these ridiculous characters could ever exist in our reality and instead look to making a live action version of "Justice League Unlimited".
Otherwise, Warner's can continue fucking up and I'll be more than happy to watch Marvel and Disney eat them alive.
kel Hear hear!
December 4, 2012 at 12:41AM ESTkel
December 4, 2012 at 12:40AM EST Reply to CommentYes really. What does being director-friendly have to do with it? I mean, they're still failing on the superhero front.
Were you even thinking when you typed this? Lord of the Rings was not WB, it was New Line. WB owned them but they operated by themselves, sort of like how Marvel is still a separate entity. Disney just owns them and is the money, but have almost no creative input. One down.
Matrix Trilogy - WB had a leash on the Wachowskis for the first film and that turned out well. How did number two or three go? Yeah, the execs weren't smart enough to say something when they actually had to and the audience received two of the most self-important films in the past two decades. Oops! Too bad people didn't enjoy those ones. Two down.
Nolan - The Dark Knight trilogy ended on a sour note because they simply gave Nolan too much freedom. Inception is decent but that's all because of Nolon, it had nothing to do with WB. They just gave him money and free reign. For Inception, it worked. For TDKR, it didn't. The execs are still morons. Three down.
The Harry Potter series were not director friendly...they used several different directors and asked all of them to keep the films short. Or as short as possible, again, this affected HP3 and HP5 the most I would wager. Four down.
Eastwood's output has been decent only because of Eastwood. Now you may say the execs are smart for leaving Eastwood alone, but that's like not interrupting a painter when he's working. It's common sense. Five down.
In the last two years, they've stumbled a bit? UH....Superman Returns was released in 2006 and the fans said it was a piece of trash, which it was. Routh was a terrible choice. Green Lantern was awful, it was so boring. WB has no idea on how to handle their superhero properties which is what the article is referring to. That's what I meant, but as a whole who's doing better right now? Marvel/Disney or DC/WB? Yeah, answer that question to yourself and shut your mouth. WB and its bean counters are clueless. Do they even like films?
American Jedi
December 4, 2012 at 11:52PM EST Reply to CommentEverything Drew says is right. There are so many reasons why using Darkseid in a first JLA movie in 2015 would be a mistake. And yet I'm struggling to think of what villain they SHOULD use. It has to be someone powerful and terrifying enough to pose a challenge to that entire team of big guns. Who does DC have, really?
SuperBoy88 Mongol
April 4, 2013 at 5:47AM ESTandy
April 21, 2013 at 12:44AM EST Reply to Comment.....seriously?!?...IT?S NOT DARKSEID....IT'S THANOS!!!!!