Follow TV Tropes
Well, that weakness is a result of any story being limited in what it can cover. Drumline, Mighty Ducks, The Replacements, Bring it On, whatever it is, they only have so much time.
And yes, the movie will focus on Superman and Batman with Zoidberg in a supporting role.
Now that I think about it, the new A-Team movie did an awesome job with this idea.
I'm trying to think of a solid example for what you're talking about. I know I've seen something like that before, and seen it work. War movies are only examples I can think of right now.
Like I agreed, it could work in two ways: they don't focus on anybody, and the movie is about the organization itself, or they focus on one or two characters as they build the team together, with everyone playing a major supporting role. Trying to give that focus to all six characters without any kind of background would be... troublesome, however.
Yeah, war movies are a better example for this. If they did focus on a couple mains, then of course it'd be the contrast between Batman and Superman. That's why ideally (for me) it would be strictly a team movie. It would definitely be a breath of fresh air for the super hero movie genre. Also I guess we're sorta missing the obvious: The X-Men movies, at least before Wolverine completely hijacked them.
edited 11th Apr '11 8:45:27 PM by Aleclom
^ Implying Wolverine hasn't hijacked the entire X-Men franchise decades ago.
Haha, fair point! Before he completely totally 100% hijacked it, then. Also Fantastic Four, I guess.
edited 11th Apr '11 8:48:26 PM by Aleclom
Those movies are examples of what not to do.
Except maybe making the movie about Magneto, but I just don't know who would work as a DC equivalent.
Whats this "six core JL Aers" nonsense? Its *seven* core JL Aers.
Oh derr yeah, I just miscounted. Whoops!
What if the first movie just focused on the Big Three - Batman, Superman and Wonderwoman? And then the others got introduced in a possible sequel..
Then it wouldn't be a Justice League movie, it'd be a Trinity movie.
Core JL: Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, J'onn, GL. Who am I forgetting?
edited 12th Apr '11 8:12:03 AM by Ronnie
Aquaman. Every Justice League type team needs an Underwater Hero. Just ask Mark Waid
^^ Black Canary, these days, is always involved.
edited 12th Apr '11 8:44:37 AM by KnownUnknown
In the comics yes, in a movie? Doubtful. She doesn't have the established media prescence.
I can just imagine people saying "who is that Blond Wonder Woman???" or something.
I severely doubt they're limiting movie appearances to characters who already appeared in movies.
Superhero movies these days are all about giving strong characters from the comics exposure outside them: it's part of the point.
If they didn't pay attention to characters except for those they already exposed, we wouldn't ever get anywhere.
edited 12th Apr '11 10:01:13 AM by KnownUnknown
Who is we?? Where is this we going??
But no, I don't see a virtual unknown to the public becoming important to a movie. It'll be Big 3, 4 if they keep Green Lantern, possibly 5 with the Flash, and maybe some others for filler.
Big names or nothing.
We being the comic-book industry.
Where do you draw the line between an unknown and a non-unknown? What constitutes a "big name." Going strictly by movies and outside exposure, DC only has two big names, and the rest are in varying states of semi-existence. In films, DC's only worked with the Superman mythos and the Batman mythos. And Jonah Hex, but... yeah. Guess Jonah's was considered a bigger name than GL at the time.
But even in those movies, you get the use of minor characters. General Zod in Superman 2? Check. Ra's and Scarecrow in Batman Begins? Check. Sal Maroni in The Dark Knight? Check. It's all relative, man.
Historically speaking, if comics went only with character who were already known in films, we wouldn't've had, say... half the shows we've had that did expose characters -> characters are generally first brought out in television shows (or radio, back in the day), and then fully given films.
Marvel's doing it right by introducing as much as they can: there's a Thor movie coming out this year, and Thor hasn't had a single anything outside the comics since the 60's. SHIELD and Nick Fury? Strictly bit role outside of comics. Marvel's long been interested in making feature films of their less-exposed characters, hence how we got good stuff like Blade.
On the other hands, sticking to big names is an easy way to lose possible ground when it comes to content, you limit yourself to one or two films/series while everyone else is using new ideas.
But hey, I don't think DC's doing that. They're coming out with a Green Arrow film, after all. If Green Arrow is big name enough for a film, Black Canary certainly is, because when going by the comics themselves, she's an extremely important character.
edited 12th Apr '11 11:40:38 AM by KnownUnknown
I'm sorry, but you're stuck on this film already existing thing which is not part of my argument. I said "established media prescence" which is rather more inclusive. Nor I talking about OTHER films involving a given property. I'm sure they can develop an independent property just fine. But in regards to a Justice League film, they will just need to cover the Big names. Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman take the 3 slots. GL and Flash to round it out. Anybody else will just be gratuitous filler in the movie Which will be good, because if they tried some other way they would just screw it up. I do not want that.
Like they screwed up with Ra's Al Ghul, so if you please, take him out of that movie and it'll be much better. Same with some of the bad guys in the prior Batman movies. Bane, for example.
No thank you.
I'd rather they not try and fail when they can do just fine not trying something they'll probably screw up.
BTW, note how Marvel went with the Samuel L. Jackson version of Nick Fury. There's a reason for that.
edited 12th Apr '11 12:35:49 PM by blueharp
Screwed up with Ra's? Really? I don't think so.
Buh? My point was on and related to movies that have already been made or are currently in production.
Anyways, for that last bit, they went with Samuel L. Jackson because they had a contract with him: they wanted Jackson to be fury in the Ultimate comics, and in return Jackson has rights to always play Fury in any film project.
And in any case, I know you're representing the "never read the comics" outlook here, but the assertion that they would be "gratuitous filler" says more than they're not exposed outside the comics, but also that you're assuming that because they're not exposed outside the comics they wouldn't be important or don't have the character to have a presence in the film, which is a statement on the characters themselves rather than their personality, and when you try to apply it to characters who are important and major it just comes off badly.
edited 12th Apr '11 12:41:30 PM by KnownUnknown
No, I'm representing a different view than the one you think I am. I'm representing the view of a person who is cynical enough to believe that the producers of the film will screw things up if they try covering the minor characters in a team movie in a way that's not action-oriented.
Heck, I think they'll screw things up in an independent movie on a given character, but I'd like this Justice League movie to be good.
See, my problem is with the movie makers, not with the characters. I'd rather not give them a chance to fail when they can do a good action-oriented special effects movie.
Leave that to the longer-running productions, they have the time to do it right.
So you think the producers/writers/etc are less likely to screw up Superman than they are to screw up someone who hasn't been done before?
I think you underestimate the powers of a terrible writing/producing . If it would've been bad one way, it would likely still be bad in another.
edited 12th Apr '11 1:17:09 PM by KnownUnknown
Nope. They are fully capable of screwing it up with anybody when they try to have a story. But the action-orientation? I think they can get special effects right, and if they get it wrong, well, then it's clearly not a character issue, and so I don't cringe and puke at what they've done to the story.
Then why would you care about whether or not they screw up a character? Especially if that character is just as capable of being action oriented and Bad Ass as the others?
edited 12th Apr '11 1:26:50 PM by KnownUnknown
Because I feel sorry for the characters who have to live that kind of thing down.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?