Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 kronk wrote:
The only comic book movie worse that Thor 2 is Catwoman.

I don't know what people are smoking.

Both are better than the recent Batman films

Ha. Haha. Yeah...no. 95% of the population would probably disagree with you. Of course, we can all take comfort in knowing that the best Batman movie out there was Under the Red Hood. Rottentomatoes backs up my statement. Not opinion, mind you. Statement. Fact.

Never heard of Under the red Hood to be honest - I'll have a look.

You haven't? Wow. It's on Netflix. Also, RT gave it a 100% from the critics. Haven't seen many movies get that score ever on that site. It starts out with Death in the Family and moves on from there. John DiMaggio is the Joker and Neal Patrick Harris plays Nightwing in it. Very well done, the attitudes are great, and many quotes from that movie have ended up as my ringtones on my phone.
DiMaggio plays an awesome, creepy AND hilarious Joker, and Bruce Greenwood does serious justice to the Batman role. I recommend it to any fan of Batman. I also haven't met ANYONE who has disliked it or even found it only okay.

That is strange, as every poll I ever read puts Mask of the Phantasm at the top of the list of Batman films, and unlike the straight to home video Under the Red Hood it also was in the theaters. That might also account for why it has more than triple the reviewers and has actual movie critics reviewing it. I like Under the Red Hood, but it is no Mask of the Phantasm.

I like Phantasm as well, but to be fair, it has been out for 20 years now... Red Hood has been out for 2-3. And it didn't reach overseas until that long ago.

Anything Batman that doesnt have Adam West in it is doomed to failure

Adam West has played as a character in the other shows a few times, such as the television superhero, 'The Grey Ghost,' which caused some inspiration for a young Bruce in Batman The Animated Series.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Anything Batman that doesnt have Adam West in it is doomed to failure

Exactly. I mean, what was Nolan thinking anyway?

 Compel wrote:
Adam West has played as a character in the other shows a few times, such as the television superhero, 'The Grey Ghost,' which caused some inspiration for a young Bruce in Batman The Animated Series.

He's also the mayor in The Batman.

My favorite batman Incarnation is Batman The Brave and the Bold TBH, because every week it was fresh and interesting.

 Ahtman wrote:
That is strange, as every poll I ever read puts Mask of the Phantasm at the top of the list of Batman films, and unlike the straight to home video Under the Red Hood it also was in the theaters. That might also account for why it has more than triple the reviewers and has actual movie critics reviewing it. I like Under the Red Hood, but it is no Mask of the Phantasm.

Really? I'm the opposite. I like MotP, but UtRH feels like a MUCH stronger film. I think Phantasm's big thing is that it's set in the Hammill/Conroy universe. It also painted a background for the Joker that is no longer canon. It's fun, it's well done, don't get me wrong. UtRH just follows more true to the comics and brings fresh blood in that had insanely big shoes to fill-and it overfilled them.

Back on the original topic, I took it all at face value...they pushed it back because they'd have to rush to make their date. Maybe the rumored injury had something to do with it. But we've also heard recently that Affleck brought his Oscar-winning screenwriter on board to tune Goyer's script. Again, this is more ammunition for the idea that Affleck will be doing a lot more than acting in these films -- he may end directing JL or even serve as "godfather" for the whole shebang. Remember that Christopher Nolan has apparently bowed out.

Anyway, given the some of these dynamics, I think pushing it back is a good thing. I'd rather they get it right than rush. Rumors seem to point to this being a Superman film with a solid Batman component and then maybe a WW cameo. It might be a lot to juggle, but getting the Supes-Bats relationship right is the key to the DC universe IMO. That friendship defines them.

Regarding the respective universe-building approaches, there's no reason why WB has to do it the same way as Marvel. Marvel's approach has been to fairly rapidly roll out a bunch of polished, fun brain candy films, while WB seems to be focused on producing a smaller number of bigger blockbusters with perhaps a little more depth to them. (Which is IMO an interesting reversal of the way their respective comic book properties have historically been considered.)

There may never be a WW film, Flash film, etc, and that's okay. I'm sure WB would like to crack the code to making a WW film work and sell a bunch of loot to young girls. But it might make some sense to introduce the other characters in a JL film, gauge the reaction (and whet the audience's appetite), and move forward accordingly.


So I've read rumors that they're looking at going with the John Stewart GL in the JL film, as a way of both adding some needed cast diversity and distancing the movie from the GL film. Thoughts? Personally I think the former reason is stronger than the latter. GL wasn't a good film, but it was better than Batman and Robin, and that movie didn't make Bruce Wayne toxic.

I hope them pushing it back means they realized their script was gakky.

Make a good DC movie, WB. Don't feth up!