Justice League film confirmed

[Podmark]

It was confirmed today that Zack Snyder will direct a Justice League film following from Man of Steel 2.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=52451

Well I think we all knew things were heading this way. Hard for me to really say much until I see MoS2 though.

[bat1987]

Like you said hard to say anything before MoS 2. Need to see how Snyder handles Batman and WW (wasn't a fan of his Superman in MoS).

WB is really speeding things up to catch up with Marvel, we'll see how it does, too early to tell.

[BentonGrey]

I'm struck by the fact that, five or six years ago, I don't think it was in me to NOT be excited about the possibility of a Justice League movie. Yet, WB has successfully beaten every last shred of interest out of me over the last few years. The Justice League are probably my favorite characters of any setting or genre, and yet, with Snyder's name attached to them, I can't say I have any hope that they will resemble themselves in any significant ways. 

It's certainly possible that something amazing could materialize here, but given how ad hoc this whole thing is and the identities of those in charge, I have to say I don't expect much.

[BWPS]

I loved Man of Steel but I can't express enough how much Ben Affleck  has sullied me to the future of DC  movies.  I'll watch the movies but I won't be excited.

[Jimaras8]

The combo of Snyder directing/writing isn't a glorious sign for me. I have seen almost all his movies and the only one i loved was Watchmen where let's face it, hed did a copy/paste of the iconic novel. Snyder is a man with vision and passion for his films. That said he has major difficulties materializing tose visions. The execution is rather bland or uninspiring whereas the visual values of his films are state of the art. I respect him as a visualist but not as a narrator or even a writer. Sucker punch was written by him and it was an absolutely mesh. I want to be excited about Bats and Supes but Snyder is the main reason i can't.

[JeyNyce]

I'm not excited or disappointed by it.  I'm just going to wait until the movie comes out.  I'm more concern about how the story is going to play out.  Are they going to be like Marvel and have MoS 2 be the beginning of the storyline and have it end in the JL movie or what.

[Midnite]

The combo of Snyder directing/writing isn't a glorious sign for me. I have seen almost all his movies and the only one i loved was Watchmen where let's face it, hed did a copy/paste of the iconic novel. Snyder is a man with vision and passion for his films. That said he has major difficulties materializing tose visions. The execution is rather bland or uninspiring whereas the visual values of his films are state of the art. I respect him as a visualist but not as a narrator or even a writer. Sucker punch was written by him and it was an absolutely mesh. I want to be excited about Bats and Supes but Snyder is the main reason i can't.

Chris Terrio is revising the screenplay.

[John Jr.]

While the Marvel "Movieverse" is composed of different toned movies set in a shared universe, I believe WB wanted to give all their movies the same tone, similar to Nolan's Dark Knight, for obvious reasons. But, like Midnite said, they are making some course corrections:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2014/02/01/how-warner-is-rebranding-batman-vs-superman/

[SickAlice]

I'm about it personally. Like I've mentioned before though, I just " Like comics ". I'll note the details of any work as much as any other person but mostly for fun since if it's about superheroes, chances are it appeals to my sense of nostalgia anyways. I also come from the era (Gen X) of the sugar coated Ninja Turles, direct to dvd Fantastic 4, Ernest Scared Stupid, Garbage Pail Kids The Movie, and so on so I can get away with applying the MS3TK Mantra pretty much all the time. So I'm saying the film " could " come off shoddy, and I'd note it and acknowledge why some people have gotten upset (though for some of course it could be done by Shakespeare and they'll get fired up because wiring and all that), but still enjoy it myself. It would have to go to great lengths to disappoint me just due to the fact that it's a film based on the Justice League, likewise as the film staring both Superman and Batman together will have to. I'm also happy about the announcement as it solidifies to me the era of the " team " movie is officially in full swing (the Avengers sales indicated we'd see this) and can't wait to see what other team franchises get picked for film treatments. Additionally I always love when a hero movie comes out because then all the regular folks I socialize actually know what I'm talking about, like say if I mention Cyborg, rather than think I'm blabbering madness (more than usual of course).

Sucker punch was written by him and it was an absolutely mesh.

Freedom Force on the brain, represent! 
( I do this all the time. My brain decided at some point that " nif " is word and one people outside this community know as well, and feels free to place it randomly in my FB convos)

[BentonGrey]

SA, what bothers me most about things like this that seem to be heading in bad directions and movies that really fail to live up to the characters that they portray is not that they don't do this or that to match the comics, per se, but that these are pretty precious opportunities.  How many chances at film is the Justice League going to get?  If it makes an unholy amount of money, it may get a few more, but if it makes an unholy amount of money, future installments will undoubtedly emulate this one, warts and all.  What frustrates me about shoddy adaptations is that we've got a finite number of chances to see the right movie made.  It's a shame to see any of those wasted.

I'm not saying that this Justice League movie is definitively going to waste one of those chances.  All I'm saying is that I'm not thrilled with what I've heard so far, and I don't think it's unreasonable (not that you're implying such, just speaking generally) to want the powers that be to make the most of the chances they're given.

[SickAlice]

Well unwanted as it may be " done right " is a subjective term. Is any comic movie done right by comic book readers standards? People are dissatisfied with Man Of Steel. I think it's an awkward film myself, just watched it again and feel the same as before. You know who doesn't? The majority of people who saw the film. Dedicated comic readers, especially ones who are adults are a minority of a worldwide releases audience. And of it's projected marketing group for that matter (people who will buy the products based in the film). It's just a fact. Directors should appeal to " true fans ". Sure, we'd like that, but the reality is we're near the end the pecking order line. Most Generation 1 Transformers fans loathe Bay's films, this is not news. Know who doesn't? The people who are spending tons of money of the films and related products, and I mean buying it up. Do kids today really care if Megatron is identical to a toy from the 80's? Does Hasbro? Just saying the determination of a films technical merits is actually a pretty broad and divided thing, one with many more people of interest that have to appealed to and pleased before someone who likes the comic books and I'm obviously being real short on the nature of that spectrum. Does it suck that the movie crew has to appeal to their investors, and the companies, and figures and pars, and parent groups, and their parent company, and shareholders, and so on before dedicating to comic readers? Or is the better question does it suck for the director and crew...or are they out of a job and the movie ends up not existing at all if they don't do it the REAL right way as opposed to what old fans want. Not saying I like that fact but it's there all the same so I end up sucking it up and enjoying it for what it is all the same. So, I would like for it to be the exact movie " I " want to see, but if it's not I don't think I'm going to hate it or fall asleep through it. I really don't like Man Of Steel personally. I think it's awkward to me and my interested isn't captivated. I like seeing Superman flying around fighting things in it, and how Krypton looks. That's about it. Do I think it was made wrong though? No, it was made to the right standards that it's medium needs it to be, hence why it's a successful movie that didn't fold. In world we all share things have to cater to everyone, or something some such.

[BentonGrey]

Ehh, I think you're argument is making a bit of a strawman there, SA.  There are definitely comic movies made right, there are definitely those made wrong, and there are relatively objective standards that can be used to judge stories in general (logical consistency, quality of performances and effects, etc.) that ultimately mark some films as superior to others.  I don't think anyone is going to argue that Catwoman was a better film than The Avengers, for example.

We may disagree around the edges, and there might be pretty large areas where the lines are blurred, but in general, those movies that have honored the source material, treated it right, in other words, have been superior films and have been the most successful.  Look at the wild success of the Marvel movies.  With only a few notable exceptions, they've evinced an extreme reverence for and love of what makes the characters and universe special, and they've been of better quality over all than other adaptations.  As I've often said, there are reasons that these characters and ideas have endured for half a century or more, and it usually isn't because they were desperately waiting for someone to come along and "fix" them.  Instead, it was because such characters and themes tapped into something archetypal, realized something wonderful, and the movies have managed to do the same thing.

There are exceptions to that rule of thumb, though.  The Transformers movies have certainly made an unholy amount of money...emphasis on unholy, but I imagine that they'd be even more successful if they were good and not just loud and colorful.  In fact, even my ten year old nephew can recognize that the comics and cartoons tell better stories than the movies when he is given a chance to compare. 

The money a movie makes is only one measure of its success, after all.  Yes, it's the only one that matters to the suits in charge, it is how the film is most immediately judged, but the movies that endure do more than just make piles of money, they create something special.  We should expect more from our entertainment.  If we do, we may get more than "big, dumb action movies."  We might get well made movies, even if they happen to be full of action.  I like the critique that Cracked gave of this argument:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-common-movie-arguments-that-are-always-wrong/

I don't think it's too much to expect the basics of good stories, logical consistency, no plot holes, and reasonable motivations, from our entertainment.  In the same way, I don't think it's too much to expect an adaptation to actually attempt to adapt that from which it is drawn.

I'm not claiming that these types of things are entirely objective, nor denying that taste is a big factor, but I don't think this is all just a matter of taste.  Yet, that does not necessarily mean that such conversations as these are merely exercises of 'I like this, you like that.'  For most of human history we've recognized that some stories are good, and some stories are bad. 

[Tomato]

I'm with Benton on this... though I personally refer to a video Nostalgia Critic made awhile back called "Is it Right to Nitpick?. The gist of the video is that while there is no such thing as a "Perfect film" (there are problems and things to criticise on any film) we are much more likely to see those problems in a film that draws us into its world then one that does not. So yes, it is ABSOLUTELY fair to say that Man of Steel did not do its job by adequately drawing the audience into the world it was trying to create. And as for "the majority of people who saw the film"? Yeah, no. Adjusted for inflation, Man of Steel barely did any better than Superman Returns.

Now, don't get me wrong: I liked Man of Steel. But I also liked XMO:Wolverine and Green Lantern. That does not mean that they aren't all flawed films, it's just that I'm able to see past the flaws and have fun with them as they are. But none of those films blew me away, nor was I in anticipating any of them like I am Avengers 2 or Days of Future Past. I'll watch it, maybe enjoy getting a few new movie figures, but otherwise... eh.

[BentonGrey]

Thanks 'Mato, well said.  Yeah, I want to be as excited for a JLA film as I am for an Avengers film...man, I would kill to have that kind of reason to be excited. 

[SickAlice]

Well I have to agree to disagree with both of you sorry. Your stance is that the Superman films weren't top notch. But your projection for the Justice League films potential to be bad is they were low grade, which they weren't. And no, I'm actually right. The majority of film goers liked the Superman films. I wasn't saying the majority of people on Earth payed money for the film so the draw is really a moot point. Transformers made tons of cash so that equals quality production. Twilight, better than most superhero films? Work your way though every movie ever made. Rocky Horror Picture Show, garbage? It didn't outsell Harry Potter after all? Or just because it's there * points * Aquaman, the character and whatever run of the book is terrible because it doesn't have the draw other things do. But that doesn't denote it's audience and what they collectively feel about the character and comics, you know? I like Aquaman too and get snickered at for it, but so what. Their math is off anyways. So I have disagree on that sorry though it wasn't what I was saying. The majority of people who went to see a film, and any superhero film are not people who read comic books, that's the basis of point and bottom line. So they aren't weighing in factors from the comics and the traditions surrounding them no matter how you want to slice it. Those are imagined factors by comic readers, saying all this as one myself, that only exist and only can exist in those who dedicate themselves to the source material. And again including that factor you have to understand that pleasing the comic book readers isn't the priority nor standard movie makers factor into making a superhero film, in fact it's one of the last. Like it or not, and it's something fans of any subgenre can rarely accept of the entire audience of a film based on there hobby. Not because I believe it's that way, nor want it to be, but because it's both mathematically and statistically impossible for it to be any other way. Because you know what? People who don't read comics thought Deadpool was cool in the movie. Gosh that hurts to even type it, but it's the truth. Our experience with superhero films will be tainted more so than those who do not read comics and we'll have a more critical view towards them. People who were into Transformers and GIJOE as kids show more scrutiny of current works. A child you know doesn't really speak for the board, sorry. Kids nowadays know Transformers Prime and Rescue Bots. Ebert also hated the Transformers films. But he also hated slasher films. All of them and literally worked to ban them from existence. Already people are lighting up on the internet who watched Jem as children saying it's done wrong. If a movie came out about Freedom Force well needless to say we would all have strong opinions about it and probably not be too reserved when it came to sharing them. In fact most of is without thinking would declare some expertise on the subject more than those who'd never played the game had. But none of the above actually equals bad movie. It equals less enjoyable movie for yourself as a dedicated fan of the base medium. Know what I'm saying? It doesn't equal flawed either, just flawed in the eyes of comic book fans. People who make movies go to school for it, it's their job and they know exactly what they're doing. The fact remains that comic readers just are not enough of any movies viewing audience, therefore it wouldn't stand to logic for film makers to make a carbon copy of the movie into a live action film. They have at times sure and likely in their expertise in film making they declared that in those case the translation from paper to film was acceptable as is and that it would cater to their overall demographic with only minor tweaks. In others, like Superman and Batman they changed things up because the source material just didn't work on film. That didn't sink the ship though either way. Again I'm saying this as someone who doesn't even like Man Of Steel (it's on right now, taping for mums) but I wouldn't call it terrible because I know it went over with enough people. So yeah, it is " I like this, you like that " I hate meat. Bacon most of all meat. I think it tastes gross. And most of science is behind me on this. Bacon is not healthy for you. So bacon is bad then yes? Because the details aren't up to snub. But no, because many people " enjoy " bacon, too many to call it on " bad " and at best get away with saying " it has inconsistencies ". But I digress. I made reference towards shoddy films from my yesterday, some well known poory done even in their day. The point is I think we've all become spoiled. As a consumer I'll admit I am, almost inherently even. My feeder bar drops a variety of vittles from it, all constructed to challenge my tastes. And at some point the bar raised. Of course no one would argue that Catwoman was great. But, I bet they would have if it hadn't been made after several beloved Batman movies. (Really too comparing Catwoman and Man Of Steel is like comparing Leonard Part 6 and Young Frankenstein, the overall reception for these films is very different and the gulf of it vast). Before those films people thought the Adam West stuff was the bomb (that's an intentional pun, yeah). Now people say it's hokey garbage apparently written by a crazy person. Does that make that series terrible then? Not really, it's just held now to high standards. Now we had Watchmen...okay some of us, a lot of people think it's terrible. Some say it's too far off from the comic. Anyways, most of us (only pointing to those who read comics again), had Watchmen. We had Burtons Batman film, Nolans Batman films, Avengers, Iron Man I would even say was held in high regard, Sin City for some. You know what I'm getting at though. When it comes to superhero stuff, basically we all have " refined tastes " (adjusts monocle and puffs on pipe) so our standard for comic to film is much different than the viewing audience outside our collective bubble, hence doesn't account for the overall achievement of a super film particularly as our (collectively) view tends to be though the looking glass, and staring at that one spot that looks like the comic books. That also means we see a greater distance in the adaption than is actually there, and often blot out the condensation factor any movie faces. In fact as result of this effect many comic readers now regard Burton's Batmans as tripe because they consider Nolan's better, but is it fact? Superman, modern ones, also have many particular issues. Asides being a large franchise meaning it has any number of things to align to, there is that whole lawsuit which was a big deal for WB. That and working in anticipation of future ones and trying to prevent them. In fact we've been told for years now that the face of Superman would be changing. And it's a big deal again, I don't know if you know the extent. Like families of past WB movies have been trying to sue them over everything. Casablanca in fact, and I know the family closely though I'm going to have to tuck that away, insider info and all that, has several lawsuits revolving it still in action and that goes pretty far back doesn't it. MoS doesn't match the source material identically (personally I think a modern movie that did would look silly but I guess that's me?), but neither does the one in the current comics so why is that a factor? He was Superman, he had a Superman costume and cape, he had the powers, he came from Krypton, he was raised in a podunk town by the Kents, he gets the feels when he looks at Lois Lane, and he fights Zod and saves the Earth. New look to it for sure, but the elements are all there. I dunno, I think you two are judging the film too harshly and wrong about the entire audiences feelings towards the film. Straw man, if by the definition of using one thing to define another thing it isn't (Transformers against Superman) I guess you got me there, though I don't really care about internet debate nor the structure of it so shuggle it. But I can say isn't establishing a prevision of a movie that's well off and another between sort of straw man anyways? I mean all we got is official information right? Kind of like all the official confirmed stuff we got about Creeper, Baby Doll and Depp as the Riddler in the third Batman? Just thinking it, that old saying about judging books by their covers. One film doesn't equal the other. The last three Batman's were by the same person, the first three Spider-man's and the Lord Of Rings, and so on yet I think there's a lot of things said that there's a difference between the related vehicles and could therefore determine that a directors take on one film doesn't completely determine how a sequel will come out. Your free to not get excited for it, I hope I don't imply otherwise. I don't design to dictate your personal feelings towards the film. And not to like Man Of Steel and Superman Returns, I'm in one of those boats with you anyways but I'm going to have not agree on them being failures as well as the reasons for, nor proof of a failed Justice League Movie heresy I know but any assumption that the film makers actual owe comic readers anything. Just how it shakes it here. Will Justice League be one of the GREATEST films? Maybe? Will it just be an okay film? Maybe? Did the film makers fail if it isn't one the greatest films of all time? I don't believe so. Do any of us really know? Nope. Well okay time travels in my character powerset so I could, but you know spoilers and stepping in movie popcorn makes paradoxes so I'm going to have to pass. If anything Benton, BentonGrey, whichever your comfortable with think about this: It's pretty early. Your not excited. Basically I am, but I'm really not that excited. But there really isn't anything we should be excited about so it could be natural. It's still entirely possible when it gets closer and the adverts roll out you'll get pumped and so will I, and when you see it maybe it will great for you. Maybe in fact by lowering the bar it will exceed your expectations, and we'll chat here again and I'll be the one trying to sell you on what a bad movie Justice League was, lol. Just to note it too, everything your saying literally I've seen said about Whedon and The Avengers film, before and after the fact, whether in relation to why it would be a terrible production or why it is a bad movie to date.That's all I got. As for the Cracked link...I remember reading barely, I get there stuff in my FB feed, but their a comedy site and I rarely consider proof of anything and especially not authority. Funny articles, well not so much these days I think. Nostalgia Critic much the same, besides that kind of his job. Of course he's going to defend being critical. I kind of consider the validity of those things as much as I did earlier this week when someone one a social network tried arguing against feminism statements with an episode of South Park, no offense and I enjoy all three of those things myself for laughs. Well here's to hoping Justice League isn't a flop. *clink*

* sorry about the wall-o-text Btw, hard to do this on this pc and connection.

[BentonGrey]

Ohh man, SA.  Can we get some paragraphs?  That would make your posts a lot easier to read.

[Tomato]

Actually... no. You ARE wrong, because throwing money at a movie and making it sparkly does NOT mean it is a "quality production". A good part of the reason Man of Steel is a blah movie is BECAUSE OF THE CREATIVE STAFF BEHIND IT. Michael Bay, for instance, isn't going to start making introspective analysis on the works of Shakespeare. Man of Steel is a very flawed film, and not just with comic fans... I have plenty of non-comic fans who thought the pacing was bad, some of the motivations didn't match up, etc. Doug Walker, who does the Nostalgia Critic series I linked last post, did a collaboration review alongside AngryJoe where Joe (a Superman fan) loved the film and Doug (who really doesn't know the comics at all) hated it. Not because he had ANY attachment to the character, but because he thought it was a bad FILM.

Yes, this is all opinion, and things could happen that change our mind between now and when this film comes. But while I'm perfectly happy to keep up with the news and see what the designs are (if only to get me some darn Justice League movie action figures) I don't anticipate it with the same fervor as I do other films. I feel like DC is rushing this, they should have focused everything on a Trinity (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman) movie next, then built Justice League around that.

[SickAlice]

Like I said sorry but I have to disagree, with both your perception of movie production and the logic your attempting to make a case with mainly because it's not applicable and the math is bad. I tried to lay out why but maybe I'm composing it right? If you say the film has a number of things that are off, I'm in no disagreement there. You saw " flaws " but what you've pointed out aren't. A flaw would be for example when in an Ed Wood film you see a string you shouldn't be able to, not that the content which was actually done correctly is questionable to some. I see that it's it there, like I said I'm bored with the film personally, but there's reasons everything was done the way they were in MoS and to me at least seem very apparent. But is it a terrible production? That's were I can't agree and I don't agree that the majority of people who watched it feel that way either. Key word BTW, the " persons who watched it ". That's why the " made this revenue " whereas the other movie made this much doesn't actually apply. That type of train of thought is similar to how a beauty pageant works or an election, if that example helps to clarify? The difference is the votes in those contests are from people who experienced more than one subject and where doing so the intention of comparing them. As well just because it's second place doesn't make it " worst " nor unappreciated for what it is. In films there is no competition of such so try and attempt to line one up is boulderdash. Be it a lesser amount of persons that paid for it or more, it's the overall appreciation from the sum of the persons who did watch it that speak for it's merits. The persons who didn't see it really don't have a say, you know, so why would how many people didn't see a film factor into opinion of said film? It's like saying that any movie that didn't make as much money as Avengers is terrible by default and Avengers is better than every film and I saw many do as such elsewhere and/or try and apply the same logic to other films (Captain America 1st Avengers vs. final Harry Potter chapter springs immediately to mind here). That's where that logic alludes me and seems more an absence of. It's also exclusive of other factors in play as much as again your misunderstanding of things that have to be done a certain way in each film (Transformers could not have been based directly on the originals for example, it would have lost it's initial investors Hasbro and various automotive corporations and never happened in the first place just for one. This is cross-applicable to MoS. Am I explaining this wrong, I'm sort of confused?) and anything else in play, like the amount of people that downloaded which ever film rather than paying for it for example. Again Nostalgia Critic is well...a joke. That's not a serious point of contention to use, no offense. An enjoyable bit to say the least as any reviewer online really but not proof of anything.

And yeah Benton, already told you I'm having trouble with my browser and apologized for it. Basically on my end I'm typing into what looks like the search box for Google. It has to do with a slow connection and not being able to update the browsers. I digress, I'm detecting I'm inciting a bit of abrasion and snarkiness where I'm only attempting to explain the logistics of the process from my view inside the industry itself. I get it, you passionately loathe the film. It's a laxative to me anyways. But I just have to leave at that I think your wrong in your reasoning and acknowledge you feel the same towards me, and I get the why's of that and concede to bow out of the discussion for fear it will turn into something I consider this forum to be above as well fall into repetition and redundancy. My respect for either of you pretty much exceeds my desire to convince you of where MoS actually rates anyways. Sorry to hear your not feeling new movies coming out and that the ones that have grate on you. Wish there was something to do for that. Happy spring if your experiencing it your areas (snowstorm here, BLUH!).

[Tomato]

Ummm... no. A flaw, in terms of a film, is anything that breaks the illusion the film is trying to create. Jonathan Kent constantly telling Clark to both "Be great" but also "Imma die to hide your greatness"? That is a FLAW that audiences noticed and which broke the illusion the film had created. The church scene which might as well have been shoving the Jesus parallels down the audience's throats? That is a flaw because it is so heavy handed that it broke the illusion for some people. Those scenes might be "as intended" by the filmmaker, but they don't work for the audience he's attempting to reach with them. Now, that's not a flaw on the actor's part, or on the cinematographer or on any of the staff that shot those scenes. They are flaws that came exclusively from the Editor, the Screenwriter and the Director.

And you can't say that these films are only bad for FANS, because that's blatantly not true. I watched the first Transformers movie as a complete and total outsider to the fandom, and after watching it? I wanted nothing to do with them. I hate the look of the Bay Transformers, I hate the story of the Bay Transformers, and I have zero interest in spending money on anything related to that series. It's sad, because I kinda want to know more about the series (just as a toy collector) but I'm so afraid of having to deal with the movies again that I end up doing little more than dipping my toe in before I manage to find something else to occupy me.

[Starman]

Since when does deviating from the source material mean a quality drop in the film adaptation? That is a tired comic book guy argument that (a) ignores the fact that Marvel and DC comic book characters regularly receive makeovers in print form in order to remain relevant to their target demographic and (b) ignores films like Tim Burton's and Christopher Nolan's Batman, Del Toro's Hellboy, Mendes' Road To Perdition, Blade, etc, which all deviated significantly from the comics.

The thing that differentiates a good comic book film from a bad one is the skill of the filmmaker. Not only is it difficult for comics to be translated directly for the screen, but pleasing an existing and aging fan base is one thing, making a comic book property accessible to a new, wider audience is another. It's a fine line to strike and while "Man Of Steel" leaned further on the latter, it doesn't make me less interested in seeing a new interpretation of Justice League.

Hell, my preferred Justice League doesn't even have Cyborg in it, but I'm sure that a lot of other, younger comic readers are keen to see the character.

[Tomato]

Starman, I agree with your statement, but only up to a point. While I by no means want a page to scene adaptation of a comic book, a good adaptation (be it comics, books, or whatever) should be able to keep the core foundations of the work... its soul, if you will, in order to be considered faithful. Now, I like Man of Steel, I honestly do enjoy it... but I do also agree that some core aspects of Superman's character were missing in MoS (that said, I do think the killing thing is there to underline why he doesn't kill again... it just should have been handled better on the editing room floor) and that the adaptation of the comic character is thus flawed. It's nothing I don't think could be overcome (again, I think the killing thing was supposed to work itself out), my issue is that I don't feel like we're getting that wiggle room for it to be done properly.

That said, I'm ok with Cyborg being on the league. He's an amazing character, I love what's been done with him in the latest issues of Justice League, and I'm sorry... there's no way the studio is gonna stand for an all-white Justice League. And if we're gonna have a black dude on the team, I'd rather it be a superhero that just happened to be Black, rather than just "the black Green Lantern."

[Starman]

That said, I'm ok with Cyborg being on the league. He's an amazing character, I love what's been done with him in the latest issues of Justice League, and I'm sorry... there's no way the studio is gonna stand for an all-white Justice League. And if we're gonna have a black dude on the team, I'd rather it be a superhero that just happened to be Black, rather than just "the black Green Lantern."

I don't think anyone expressed a preference for an "all-white Justice League"? 

I don't like Cyborg because I find him boring. Personal preference. He's a guy with robot parts. John Stewart, on the other hand, is actually a pretty interestingly written character and one of DC's first black costumed superheroes, rather than "just the black Green Lantern". Skin colour aside, he's quite different, personality-wise, to Hal Jordan or Kyle Rayner. 

[Tomato]

Ummm... no, Cyborg is a long standing DC superhero, a member of the new teen titans who has had a long history being in the DC Universe (hell, he was kind of a member of the league before John was, because he was actually in the last incarnation of Super Friends alongside Firestorm). Much of his character and motivations are related to his inner turmoil over having been turned into a Cyborg and coming to terms with that fact. The fact that he's black is a part of the character, but was never the sum total.

John Stewart, on the other hand, started as very much the "black Green Lantern" and owes much of his actual development and character to stories that came well after his creation (particularly the DCAU). His original personality was defined by his race (belligerent toward authority figures, and with a giant chip on his shoulder because of his race... Yes, because there are a lot of Marines out there who are soooo belligerent) many of the stories told with him and Hal were about his race (the very first involving a racist politician). He accidentally blew up a planet, got his wife killed, got confined to a wheelchair... Really, most of the positive development for the character came after he was included in DCAU's Justice League.

Does that mean I dislike John? Hell no. The Modern incarnation is great, and I loved that he was included in JL/JLU. But I do tend to prefer black and/or female characters who started with their own identity, over ones that I feel like are going to be constantly overshadowed and compared to their white male counterparts (if only because they came first).

[Starman]

Much of his character and motivations are related to his inner turmoil over having been turned into a Cyborg and coming to terms with that fact.

Personally, that "motivation" has been done to death via characters across an array of media and it isn't interesting to me. I'd argue that it isn't interesting to quite a few people since Cyborg has never (as far as I'm aware) had a solo book or one where he is the primary focus.

No kidding that John Stewart was initially defined by his race ... he was introduced in 1972 as one of the first dominant African-American heroes in the pages of DC Comics! Cyborg started out as one of several cogs in a "teen team" book and his origin involved a pile of angry young 1980s African American youth issues (sports vs education, street gang fights, a friend involved in racially motivated terrorism) around 10 years later. Both characters dealt with racial issues, obviously just over different time periods.

Cyborg is a better character than John Stewart because John Stewart is a part of the Green Lantern Corp and was preceded in the role by a white character, right? So, if any of the numerous cyborg characters in DC Comics who preceded Vic Stone (like, say, Tharok from The Fatal Five) had actually been named "Cyborg", or if he had been a legacy character for a white hero ... that would cause you to appreciate Vic Stone a little less? I hope not.

Ummm... no

Dude.

[Tomato]

I was taking issue with the "just a guy with robot parts" line, which is flatly nonsense and spits in the face of one of my favorite characters. Cyborg has had a long and varied history with the Wolfman/Perez Titans, has led several of the successive incarnations of the Titans, and even at one point became a planet sized monster who tried to eat the moon (long story). He's earned his spot on the League, and I'm just as happy to have him involved in the film. And yes, I admit I'm being dismissive of John in my arguments, but the sad truth is I'm so sick of DC trying to cram their token minority into the Green Lantern slot. They've done it four times now (Irish Guy Gardner, Black John Stewart, Mexican Kyle Rayner, Arab Simon Baz) and even though most of those characters turned out to be amazing (though some took longer than others), it doesn't stop it from being an obvious pattern, and one DC needs to move away from.

[Starman]

I was taking issue with the "just a guy with robot parts" line, which is flatly nonsense and spits in the face of one of my favorite characters.

Pure drama.

Yes, I can imagine seeing someone refer to a character called "Cyborg" as "just a guy with robot parts" must be infuriating. Please avoid reading the dictionary definition of "cyborg".

I'm so sick of DC trying to cram their token minority into the Green Lantern slot.

Okayyy ... this is turning into another discussion entirely about how you don't like minorities being Green Lanterns  At least Cyborg being on the Justice League doesn't seem to offend your sensibilities.

[MJB]

Seems to me that you are cherry picking the words out of Tomato's mouth so you can make a silly argument.

Tomato refers to Cyborg as MORE than a guy with robot parts & yet you point to the definition of the word "Cyborg". You lose this argument, sir. Cyborg is much more than a guy with robot parts. He has been more than that for over 25 years.

I'm so sick of DC trying to cram their token minority into the Green Lantern slot

Looking at this from the actual comment Tomato left I can see his point. READ his post before holding him to the flame. There is nothing wrong with Jon Stewart or the other minority Green Lanterns. He is trying to say that FORCING a minority race into the Green Lantern costume is just as wrong as dropping a main character because he is white. There is no difference there.

[Starman]

I'm quoting him.

Cyborg as "a guy with robot parts" is my personal opinion. Explicitly stated. It's not an argument or a dramatic spitting in the face of whatever.

MJB, as for what Tomato is "trying" to say, please explain how "forcing" a non-white or mixed ethnicity character into a Green Lantern role is "wrong" and resulted in a qualitive decline in Green Lantern comics?

I'm also curious ... does this rule just apply to Green Lantern or characters like Blue Beetle as well? What about gender roles, like Renee Montoya as The Question? Also "wrong"?

[Tomato]

Umm... again, YOU don't like Cyborg, so you're belittling the character in order to make your point, which is no better than what you're trying to get on ME for doing with John Stewart. You're ignoring 25 years of character growth to narrowly define him as "just a dude with robot parts" and that is NO BETTER than me calling John Stewart "the black Green Lantern"

My problem with the John Stewart thing is that I'm juuust old enough to remember fans complaining about it not being Hal/Kyle in the Green Lantern slot. For the first few years, everything John did as a character was compared to his white counterparts. John Stewart wasn't so much a character in his own right, as he was a replacement for what some fans wanted to see (or worse, that he was just a cheap appeasement character for black fans)... Dini and co. eventually broke through that and established him as his own character, but for awhile, that is ALL fans were concerned with. And now, only a few years after Hal Jordan was in a live action film, and has had his face plastered all over the comics? It would be FAR WORSE.

THAT is what I'm talking about when I say I'd rather have a character with his own identity that happens to be black, rather than the black version of another hero. I don't want to see a good character torn apart because he wasn't the boring white-bread model.

[BentonGrey]

Warning, unflattering discussion of MoS below:

Holy Hannah!  Okay, *deep breath* let's take a stab at a response here:

And yeah Benton, already told you I'm having trouble with my browser and apologized for it. Basically on my end I'm typing into what looks like the search box for Google. It has to do with a slow connection and not being able to update the browsers.

Sorry SA, I missed that. 

As for the Cracked link...I remember reading barely, I get there stuff in my FB feed, but their a comedy site and I rarely consider proof of anything and especially not authority. Funny articles, well not so much these days I think.

I didn't cite the Cracked article as some type of objective proof.  Try reading their first entry here:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-common-movie-arguments-that-are-always-wrong/
It's a humorous explanation of why the 'big dumb action movie' defense is illogical.  Their argument is brief but solid, even if it is funny.  I linked it primarily because it was enjoyable.

I digress, I'm detecting I'm inciting a bit of abrasion and snarkiness where I'm only attempting to explain the logistics of the process from my view inside the industry itself. I get it, you passionately loathe the film. It's a laxative to me anyways. But I just have to leave at that I think your wrong in your reasoning and acknowledge you feel the same towards me, and I get the why's of that and concede to bow out of the discussion for fear it will turn into something I consider this forum to be above as well fall into repetition and redundancy. My respect for either of you pretty much exceeds my desire to convince you of where MoS actually rates anyways. Sorry to hear your not feeling new movies coming out and that the ones that have grate on you. Wish there was something to do for that. Happy spring if your experiencing it your areas (snowstorm here, BLUH!).

I appreciate your grace in wanting to preserve the collegial nature of FR, but I've got no ill-will towards you, nor have I intended to be snarky.  If my posts have come across that way, I apologize.  I do, however, think that you've rather misunderstood my point, so I am going to try to clarify here.  First, I don't loathe MoS, just a particular moment thereof.  If it weren't for the ending, I'd say that it was the best Superman movie made so far, though that isn't saying very much. Second:

Your stance is that the Superman films weren't top notch. But your projection for the Justice League films potential to be bad is they were low grade, which they weren't.

Yes, I do argue that MoS wasn't top notch, and while I wouldn't exactly call it low grade, I would certainly call it very uneven.  I'm not claiming that it was poorly made in the same sense or degree as Catwoman (to continue using that film as our metaphorical punching bag), but there is a big range between something that terrible and a truly well-crafted film.  However, my reasons for such thoughts are different from the ones you seem to imagine.  Yeah, I think that their treatment of Superman was abominable at the end and not as interesting as he deserved to be throughout, (and so does the guy whose story they adapted for Snyder's overwrought ode to destruction porn) but the film has problems that are much more concrete.  It has plot holes, inconsistent motivations, clumsy deus ex machina like moments, and more.  These things are, objectively speaking, poor qualities for a story to have.  Flaws are not only visible strings or zippers in the monster costume, they are also the places where the structure of the story shows through and the viewer is pulled out of the movie.  It doesn't matter if not everyone saw it (everyone I've talked to about MoS saw its flaws, even if it took them some time), as a plot hole is a plot hole, whether you notice it or not.  The sky is no less blue if I fail to notice it.  MoS certainly had its fair share of such flaws.  It also had very nicely done special effects and some great performances.  Taken all together, that makes MoS, at best, an uneven film.  You can certainly argue that the good outweighs the bad, but that rather misses my point.

You see, I wasn't trying to argue that MoS was a bad movie or that Snyder was a bad director, specifically.  I don't think either is true, exactly.  Nor was my point that the Justice League movie is inevitably going to be terrible.  Obviously, we can't know that yet.  I have said that I don't hold out a lot of hope for it, and I've explained my reasoning on that front.  Yet, that is clearly very subjective.

No, my point was much more general.  What my last several posts have argued is that "big dumb action movie" is a poor excuse to create lousy art.  We, and by "we" I mean the movie going public in general, should insist on competent stories and storytelling in our entertainment.  We should realize that it isn't too much to ask for to have someone actually read a script to see if everything in it makes sense.  We should realize that giving our money to people who shovel out half-baked junk like, say, the Transformers movies, leads to more half-baked junk.  If we spend our money more wisely, we will in turn find that the powers that be will create a better class of film to target a more discerning audience.  Look at the incredible response that has followed the Marvel movies, a response that has spread to decidedly non-comic folks, and yet one which is filled with an enthusiasm that is really quite remarkable.  My wife, who is rather anti-comic, was anxiously awaiting Captain America, but I couldn't drag her to a DC movie, a Transformers flick, or the like if I tried.  You can argue that we're spoiled by good movies, but that doesn't wash.  We had good movies in the past, and even Adam West's Batman was well-made for what it was.  Despite that, we were just as able to reject bad, poorly made films.  Look at the reaction to Schumacher's Batman flick!

You see, the argument that profit makes a "quality" film is entirely incorrect.  Profit makes a profitable film, that's all.  It means a lot to the suits, but how much money a movie earns doesn't really mean that much in the long run.  Look at Fight Club!  It was hated by the suits because they didn't understand it (no surprise there), and they buried the movie before its release.  Surprisingly enough, it underperformed at the box office.  Yet, it's one of the most influential films of the last few decades.  My students today are still watching and talking about Fight Club over a decade and a half after its release!  It's indelibly imprinted on the minds of my generation, and it is, without a doubt, an amazing film, despite its commercial failure.  Heck, even Citizen Kane flopped at the box office!  I doubt anyone is going to argue that the Transformers movies are higher "quality" than Citizen Kane.  Compare that to the Transformer films themselves.  They made money, tons of money, but who is seriously going to say that they are "quality" films?  They are not.  Objectively, they are not.  Factually, they are not.  They have plot holes, they have inconsistent motivations, they are filled with deus ex machina.  They fail at the basic principles of storytelling.  Are they fun to watch?  In parts, yeah, and maybe you can argue that their good outweighs their bad too.  However, we should and can get more from our entertainment.  The Avengers is incredibly fun to watch, but it's also an incredibly well-made movie.  It is a "quality" film, as are most of the Marvel movies.  They are simply better crafted stories, and people recognize that.

Notice, none of what I have said is about how comic-accurate a particular production was.  That's because my point was not that a movie is only good when it is source-accurate.  No, films are good when they are actually made well, but what's interesting is what the last decade has taught us.  Look at the cinema landscape during the superhero explosion and you will find that the best films we've gotten have been good in part because they have been comic-accurate.  It's true that being faithful to their sources is the last priority for a lot of filmmakers, but look at what such folks produce.  Yet, when someone approaches one of these projects thinking, 'you know, this character has been around for 70 years, I wonder if there is any reason for that,' they generally end up bringing the things that make these characters and ideas special to the big screen and, surprisingly enough, those very concepts that resonated with people for most of a century continue to do so today.

That's obviously not the only factor, but it certainly it must help when you don't have to reinvent the wheel.

You see, I believe that these things actually do matter, at least to a degree.  Better stories (in all senses) make us better people.  I believe in the power of good literature (of course, I know you're all shocked), and the more we have quality stories to consume rather than just disposable trash fiction, the better off we'll be.  That, combined with my love for these characters and settings, means I want the few, precious chances we have to get good stories with them to amount to more than 'big dumb action movie.'  In the context of this conversation, it matters because: as goes the first, so go the others.  The financial success of a flawed film will likely give us more of the same.

Is the Justice League movie going to be terrible?  Obviously I don't know.  I hope not.  I hope that it does turn out to be wonderful, but that wasn't really what I was talking about over the course of my last few posts.  I'm nervous because there is a lot riding on this movie, in terms of the future of DC film adaptations, and I don't see many positive signs so far.  Yet, it is early; that is very true, and much could still happen. 

Okay, so I hope that clears things up.


As for this new dust-up.  Let's take a breath, guys.  I love John Stewart largely because of the Timmverse.  He's a fantastic character, and his worth is not diminished because it took time to find the core of who he was, just like the Question.  Both of them (and many others) came into their own in the Timmverse, and they settled into roles that fit so perfectly, it was like they were made for them.

I understand 'Mato's point about DC's treatment of minority characters, but once again, I don't think their origins necessarily should be held against them.  I realize that you're arguing that such antagonism may follow them regardless of its justification, but I don't think that is entirely inevitable  Many of them became great characters in their own right, and they are worthwhile, John among them.  It's like Ryan Choi.  The poor guy had a raw deal in his intro into comics, but he transcended those origins.  Good stories, especially those of the Timmverse, smoothed things over.  I was pretty unhappy when JLA first started for precisely this reason.  I thought, 'hey, what the heck!?  They've replaced Green Lantern with a black guy just to add diversity!"  Of course, I was wrong, and John was his own character that deserved that slot just as much as Hal.  I came around because of good storytelling.

I like Cyborg too, but I'm in the camp that would rather see someone else in the League because he's a Titan to me and doesn't really belong with the big guns.  Of course, what I really want is a classic Big Seven League with Hal and Barry, but I recognize that it would never fly in this day and age.