Justice League may come right after Man of Steel...

[madmarva]

The Justice League is a recognizable brand in and of itself thanks to cartoons dating back to the 60s. The Avengers only became a household brand following the film. The recognizability of Superman and Batman alone is enough to set the table for a Justice League film. Wonder Woman and Aquaman are also notable characters that really need no explanation. It's not just niche comic book forums contemplating a JL movie. The possibility of a JL film is a story being tracked by everyone in the film industry and related industries as well as many film fans.

DC's characters are iconic. What more do you need to know about Flash than that he's the fastest man alive, or about Aquaman other than he breaths under water and swims swiftly? They are not hard concepts that need a whole film to explain. If done well, the JL movie could have fans anticipating the solo films giving them momentum rather than than the other way around. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

I know I was introduced to most members of the JL in the JL comic, not their solo titles. I think it would work for filmgoers, too, if the JL movie is well done. Now that is a big if.

The genius of Marvel is its selection of directors, screen writers and actors/stars. Locking down Whedon, one of the best at writing and directing ensembles after honing his craft in television, as the Avengers director/writer was a bold, astute move. Marvel didn't let the fact that he was "TV guy" keep making the right move.

Warner's needs to get a screenwriter who can handle the dynamics of an ensemble and a director who won't take a condescending attitude toward the material, as Martin Campbell did with GL. Even if Man of Steel is a great film, it doesn't mean Snyder necessarily has a blueprint for a JL film. Working with 3 or 5 distinct leads is much different than one.

[MIB41]

The whole ground work for the Avengers was laid out early and spoken about often in the public eye. Making those films was no "accident" that was spun into the Avengers. From the time Iron Man hit the ground running, we were introduced to Nick Fury and the "Avenger's initiative". Each subsequent film introduced and built upon that narrative which culminated in the Avengers story. And at no time during the making of those films, did Marvel say the Avengers film was up to bat next. I personally followed those films FULLY understanding the end game was the Avengers, because that was how it was told to us. And without the back story provided by those films, the Avengers would have made little sense. Each character's motivation was established and built upon from those individual films. And it was those stories that SOLD the reasoning for these people to converge. It also drove the character interplay without need for additional explanation. In short, it wasn't a costume film. People were already invested in those characters. They didn't just "show up" and people said, "Oh Wow. Look! It's Thor! It's Cap! It's Iron Man!" All of these characters were ESTABLISHED and those stories were advanced. That's why these next installments remain interesting. Because they remain linked and there's a broader scope than each film just being a sequel unto it's origin. Avengers was not a $1.5 billion "accident".

And lets be completely honest here. Warner bros. had talked the Justice League in and out of development for years before the Avengers ever got made. And every time the path was different. It was ONLY after the Avengers broke big, that Warner Bros went back to that discussion in a serious way. But at present, it remains just a discussion. History shows that while the DC properties twiddled their thumbs, Marvel studios took the risks, forged the pathway, and was richly rewarded for that risk by making a tremendous ensemble piece that everyone thoroughly enjoyed seeing again and again. It was the end product from four films of plot building. My own concerns about it just being a costume film were put to rest when I saw an actual story derived from these films. THAT gave it dimension. THAT gave them depth. It also has set the stage for DC to now look like a bunch of wanna-be's.

The only successful movie property in recent years from DC has been Batman. And that was a stand alone concept, completely separate from the DC universe. It's success and treatment has also been the source of much debate about what to do with these other characters. And as it stands right now, those who have seen the screen tests, state Superman borrows from that treatment. Not exactly what I had in mind from the Man of Steel. But with Zach Snyder at the director's helm, I'm optimistic it can be made well. So we'll see how that pans out. But to go from something closely linked to a Nolan treatment to what amounts to the Superfriends? Sorry. That's a leap I can't swallow. Warner Bros. better worry about reestablishing Superman as a viable franchise before they set their eyes on a Justice League film. Because right now it sounds like a framework too closely tied to the Watchmen movie. Another Snyder piece. And while the stories are apples and oranges, the reality base would be identical. Heroes already existing in a world where all that is needed is an excuse to go from point A to point B. In short, it becomes a costume film. It's not the story, it's hero worship in tights. People will see the Superfriends and lower their heads. Because it will be apparent no thought was given to establishing these characters so much as trying to capitalize on the Avengers. A rushed job is a rushed job. If Warner Bros makes an ensemble piece from no where, whose characters are best known from a 40 year old cartoon, then the film lives and dies on THAT perception. Nostalgia for a cartoon is not where you want to draw comparisons when starting a movie that should come from a more thought out source. Now that's it's been done in a big way with the Avengers, people think it's "easy". Well, it's not. Marvel didn't invest hundreds of millions on an assumption that decades of comics and cartoons would do the leg work and sell the concept for them. They reestablished every character for modern audiences and built it from there.

If Man of Steel turns out to be a good movie, then Warner Bros should build upon it. If those other heroes are deserving to be part of that narrative, then tell their story so they mean something more than just eye candy. And make no doubt about it. However Warner Bros. makes a Justice League movie (and that's IF it ever gets made), there will be comparisons made. That mold has been cast. Marvel did it first and was hugely successful. The accolades reign for now in their corner. Everyone KNOWS Warner Bros. wants similar results for their product. Why wouldn't they? So the question remains... Are they going to invest in these characters and flush them out? Or are they going to play it cheap and go straight for the "perceived" gold mine with an ensemble piece? My opinion is do the work. Build the characters up. The Iron man I saw from
those individual movies was INFINITELY more interesting than anything I read or saw in cartoons. And now he's one of the premiere heroes in that line up. Why shouldn't Flash, Wonder Woman, or Aquaman be given a shot like Iron Man got? Perhaps I have more faith and love in these characters than some seem to have here. But I say dignify these heroes and let them have their day in the sun. Iron Man had one of the cheesiest origins ever in comics. And look what they made out of it? I would LOVE to see the Flash come to life in a similar fashion. It would be incredible. To me the Justice League is dessert, not the main course. Do it right Warner Bros.

[Random Axe]

All of this debate and discussion further highlights my position that the JL movie should be animated. It would be some cool, motion captured animation similar to Final Fantasy and the cut scenes from the DCU online game. I know it can be done. Since it's just voices, WB would not have to commit to a particular actor for future movie roles. Then they can determine which characters have the biggest "pop" and plan solo films form that information. Then, they can worry about casting live action actors. Every superhero was, at one point, drawn or animated before they ever got a movie or tv series. This would be no different. Plus, think about how many characters they could introduce in the film. You sometimes never know which ones are going to hit, so throw a bunch out there against the wall and see who sticks.

[madmarva]

^There is no argument that Marvel handled the ramp up to The Avengers film exceedingly well. They had a plan and executed it as well as anyone could have imagined.

However, that does not mean it is the only business model that can work.

Also, Warners had a similar plan to Marvel's in the works going into the summer of 2010. Green Lantern was ready to be released, Dark KNight Rises was on deck for summer 2012, Man of Steel was to follow in Dec. of '12. The Green Lantern sequel, Flash Shazam and Wonder Woman were in development with an eye toward a Justice League film to cap it off. The DC properties were meant to replace the Harry Potter films as Warner's key franchise. That's why Diane Neilson, who had ushered the Potter adaptations to the screen, was put in charge of DC Entertainment.

Mind you, the Avengers film is in production at this time but was considered a huge risk, not a certain blockbuster.

When Green Lantern flopped out of the gates, Warners quickly changed course. With the Hobbit needing more time, it was moved from a summer 2012 release to Dec. 2012, which allowed Warners to push Man of Steel from Dec '12 to be its summer tent pole for 2013.

This was the point when Warner's began to consider spinning characters out of a JL film, which would have the built in fan base of Batman and Superman, rather than following Marvel's design.

Either model could work, depending on the talent and execution.

If Whedon and Marvel had delivered a crappy Avengers movie, it would not have been the overwhelming success that it was regardless of what groundwork had been laid by the solo films.

No doubt, the success of the solo films helped the Avengers immensely, and had Green Lantern not flopped so hard, Warner's might very well be following a similar path today.

But now, Warner is poised to go a different route, if the Superman movie can deliver on a blockbuster level, which is a big if, despite all the positive buzz.

The idea that characters must be introduced in solo films for a film about a team to be successful is blatantly false. Did the Dirty Dozen need solo films for each character to be successful? What about Star Wars? Folks didn't need a solo Han Solo or Luke or Leia film to make Star Wars a success? Were Otter, Bluto, Flounder and D-Day solo projects necessary to make Animal House work? What about The Seven Samurai or The Magnificent Seven? How about Ghostbusters or the X-Men films?

Even the Avengers film introduced characters with Hawkeye and the character Cobie Smulders played.

Again, your criticisms of Warner Bros. are valid. The company has done a poor job of translating its super heroes to the big screen. If a JL film is made, it would not be a surprise for it to under deliver or be a flop. That's Warner's overall track record. But if it fails, it won't be because it wasn't preceded by solo movies starring the Flash, Wonder Woman and Aquaman. It will be because it was a poorly executed movie.

As for the point that a charter(s) known from a cartoon can't make be successfully translated to a live action film, what is the difference from translating Iron Man from a comic book to film than translating the Justice League from the comics and cartoons to a film. It's the same thing. It's the execution.

As for changing Iron Man's origin for the film, I don't think they did, at least not the basic plot. It took place in Afghanistan rather than Viet Nam in the film, the rest is virtually the same, but executed exceptionally well.

[hedrap]

The whole ground work for the Avengers was laid out early and spoken about often in the public eye. Making those films was no "accident" that was spun into the Avengers. From the time Iron Man hit the ground running, we were introduced to Nick Fury and the "Avenger's initiative". Each subsequent film introduced and built upon that narrative which culminated in the Avengers story. And at no time during the making of those films, did Marvel say the Avengers film was up to bat next. I personally followed those films FULLY understanding the end game was the Avengers, because that was how it was told to us. And without the back story provided by those films, the Avengers would have made little sense. Each character's motivation was established and built upon from those individual films. And it was those stories that SOLD the reasoning for these people to converge. It also drove the character interplay without need for additional explanation. In short, it wasn't a costume film. People were already invested in those characters. They didn't just "show up" and people said, "Oh Wow. Look! It's Thor! It's Cap! It's Iron Man!" All of these characters were ESTABLISHED and those stories were advanced. That's why these next installments remain interesting. Because they remain linked and there's a broader scope than each film just being a sequel unto it's origin. Avengers was not a $1.5 billion "accident".

This isn't conjecture on my part. This is part of my former line of work. They weren't "building upon" anything until Whedon started writing for Marvel comics, because Favreau had a falling out during IM over the add-on Fury scene. Only reason he directed IM2 is because RDJ said he wouldn't come back without him so they came to an agreement as to what context Fury/SHIELD would be used in for IM2. Whedon did a massive rewrite to Cap and Thor during their shooting when he started rewriting Avengers. The plan was never to use the solo films as building blocks because the rights were not packaged together.Hulk was at Universal, IM was at New Line. Thor was bouncing to a new place every year. Only Cap was open to Marvel because no studio wanted to attempt it because of the Simon family lawsuit.

[MIB41]

^There is no argument that Marvel handled the ramp up to The Avengers film exceedingly well. They had a plan and executed it as well as anyone could have imagined.

However, that does not mean it is the only business model that can work.

Also, Warners had a similar plan to Marvel's in the works going into the summer of 2010. Green Lantern was ready to be released, Dark KNight Rises was on deck for summer 2012, Man of Steel was to follow in Dec. of '12. The Green Lantern sequel, Flash Shazam and Wonder Woman were in development with an eye toward a Justice League film to cap it off. The DC properties were meant to replace the Harry Potter films as Warner's key franchise. That's why Diane Neilson, who had ushered the Potter adaptations to the screen, was put in charge of DC Entertainment.

Mind you, the Avengers film is in production at this time but was considered a huge risk, not a certain blockbuster.

When Green Lantern flopped out of the gates, Warners quickly changed course. With the Hobbit needing more time, it was moved from a summer 2012 release to Dec. 2012, which allowed Warners to push Man of Steel from Dec '12 to be its summer tent pole for 2013.

This was the point when Warner's began to consider spinning characters out of a JL film, which would have the built in fan base of Batman and Superman, rather than following Marvel's design.

Either model could work, depending on the talent and execution.

If Whedon and Marvel had delivered a crappy Avengers movie, it would not have been the overwhelming success that it was regardless of what groundwork had been laid by the solo films.

No doubt, the success of the solo films helped the Avengers immensely, and had Green Lantern not flopped so hard, Warner's might very well be following a similar path today.

But now, Warner is poised to go a different route, if the Superman movie can deliver on a blockbuster level, which is a big if, despite all the positive buzz.

The idea that characters must be introduced in solo films for a film about a team to be successful is blatantly false. Did the Dirty Dozen need solo films for each character to be successful? What about Star Wars? Folks didn't need a solo Han Solo or Luke or Leia film to make Star Wars a success? Were Otter, Bluto, Flounder and D-Day solo projects necessary to make Animal House work? What about The Seven Samurai or The Magnificent Seven? How about Ghostbusters or the X-Men films?

Even the Avengers film introduced characters with Hawkeye and the character Cobie Smulders played.

Again, your criticisms of Warner Bros. are valid. The company has done a poor job of translating its super heroes to the big screen. If a JL film is made, it would not be a surprise for it to under deliver or be a flop. That's Warner's overall track record. But if it fails, it won't be because it wasn't preceded by solo movies starring the Flash, Wonder Woman and Aquaman. It will be because it was a poorly executed movie.

As for the point that a charter(s) known from a cartoon can't make be successfully translated to a live action film, what is the difference from translating Iron Man from a comic book to film than translating the Justice League from the comics and cartoons to a film. It's the same thing. It's the execution.

As for changing Iron Man's origin for the film, I don't think they did, at least not the basic plot. It took place in Afghanistan rather than Viet Nam in the film, the rest is virtually the same, but executed exceptionally well.

I think I'll feel better (or worse) about DC's business model, once I see something within the product, like Superman, that tells me there IS a direction within the story that suggests a logical path to a film like Justice League. What I've heard from those that have seen the test screenings suggest part of the story is not only about Clark's acceptance of his role on earth, but society's acceptance of a man with super abilities. Now if that plot point plays out as suggested, where does it open the possibility that other heroes already exist? If the Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, and Batman are part of the existing landscape in this proposed reality, then why does society need to adapt to Superman? From everything I've gathered, it sounds like an origin told through the eyes of Christopher Nolan. They're going to ground Superman. Perhaps not to the same extent they did with Batman. But share a similar philosophical approach regarding his purpose versus society's attitudes, and the sum total of how those two learn to coexist. It can make for a very good Superman film. I'm not against that at all. But it doesn't sound like it takes into account this idea that other super beings exist. So for me, that's the rub.

The various subplots is what I've enjoyed about the Marvel movies and the Dark Knight series. The Dark Knight was also dripping with subtext. Loved it. It was so nice to see a character from our genre given such in depth study that not only profiled his psychological makeup, but explored the social attitudes that would exist to morph this character into the person we know him to be. Nolan gave the topic all the relevance and dignity it had NEVER seen in any other film. In short, he respected the material and tried to expand upon it. I can't knock that whether it was my ideal image of Batman or not.

So I guess my point to all this is why rush it if Superman works? Build upon THAT idea, rather than just cut to the chase to make a quick buck. Build this world. Let fans explore it for all it's richness. DC has been looking for a platform to build upon. Green Lantern wasn't it. If Superman works, then they have a world to expand upon. I just can't see a movie that delves into plot and subtext of one man for over two hours morphing into another film that suddenly covers many different characters. People have always complained about films that have too many villains, because story and character development suffers. I'm not seeing how you overcome that deficit for the Justice League unless you explore character stories in separate films. And it's not just because Marvel did it that way. From a story building perspective, I just don't see how else you can achieve that. And I would hope characters like the Flash and Wonder Woman aren't reduced to second tier heroes like Hawkeye. I liked Hawkeye in the Avengers. But he was actually introduced in Thor and functioned more as a story telling device in the Avengers to explain how Loki could infiltrate Shield. He had his moments, but he was not one of the leads. I think we'll both have a better idea once Superman comes out. The execution all starts with the story direction. I hope your right! Great discussion.

[MIB41]

This isn't conjecture on my part. This is part of my former line of work. They weren't "building upon" anything until Whedon started writing for Marvel comics, because Favreau had a falling out during IM over the add-on Fury scene. Only reason he directed IM2 is because RDJ said he wouldn't come back without him so they came to an agreement as to what context Fury/SHIELD would be used in for IM2. Whedon did a massive rewrite to Cap and Thor during their shooting when he started rewriting Avengers. The plan was never to use the solo films as building blocks because the rights were not packaged together.Hulk was at Universal, IM was at New Line. Thor was bouncing to a new place every year. Only Cap was open to Marvel because no studio wanted to attempt it because of the Simon family lawsuit.

That may explain the legal wrangling they went through to achieve this objective. But by the time the first Iron Man film hit the theaters, that was the stated intent. And the rewrites to Cap only further cement that direction. So however that process played out, it most certainly took that path in the scripting as you have stated. I won't fault them for finding their footing after Iron man was in the can. But they never steered off course from that point forward. The existing product speaks to that. And it's those rewrites that gave credibility to what followed. It's a well structured story that covered many films and audiences seemed to enjoy it. I think it's safe to say Marvel studios is following that same pattern to Avengers 2. It's a smart move because these films can be their own animal, but borrow just enough plot material to swing into an ensemble piece if they so choose. It's also allowing Marvel freedom to add all sorts of heroes never deemed possible, because of that story arc. They can take obscure heroes and make them mainstream characters by tying them in with the Avengers timeline. I just can't find any fault in what their doing right now. It allows anyone who has ever read a comic book to enjoy these stories and explore the possibility of adding new characters with EVERY installment. I've even heard the Nova Corps could be part of the Guardians of the Galaxy. Just amazing things are stemming from this very successful strategy. I think everyone wins here honestly. It opens the doors for all heroes from all brands to get a shot at Hollywood immortality.

[hedrap]

That may explain the legal wrangling they went through to achieve this objective. But by the time the first Iron Man film hit the theaters, that was the stated intent. And the rewrites to Cap only further cement that direction. So however that process played out, it most certainly took that path in the scripting as you have stated. I won't fault them for finding their footing after Iron man was in the can. But they never steered off course from that point forward. The existing product speaks to that. And it's those rewrites that gave credibility to what followed. It's a well structured story that covered many films and audiences seemed to enjoy it. I think it's safe to say Marvel studios is following that same pattern to Avengers 2. It's a smart move because these films can be their own animal, but borrow just enough plot material to swing into an ensemble piece if they so choose. It's also allowing Marvel freedom to add all sorts of heroes never deemed possible, because of that story arc. They can take obscure heroes and make them mainstream characters by tying them in with the Avengers timeline. I just can't find any fault in what their doing right now. It allows anyone who was ever read a comic book to enjoy these stories and explore the possibility of adding new characters with EVERY installment. I've even heard the Nova Corps could be part of the Guardians of the Galaxy. Just amazing things are stemming from this very successful strategy. I think everyone wins here honestly. It opens the doors for all heroes from all brands to get a shot at Hollywood immortality.

I can agree with most of that. I do certainly agree that the gamble paid off, but it wasn't a master plan. It was really born out of desperation because no studio was interested in moving on anything outside the big two. It ties into why WB stopped working on DC properties; the superhero genre was hitting a massive lull.

If they could have gotten a studio to do an Avengers movie anytime between '05-'08, with a cast of Cap, Hawkeye, Widow, and whoever, they would have done it.

The real secret was 3D, which was done in post-production. Without that ability to spike ticket prices, Thor, Cap and Avengers wouldn't have performed as well.

I've read enough of your posts that you know business. It makes a huge difference to be able to charge 1 person for the price of 2, which is what 3D provided.

Goyer's comments at Reddit about DC/WB projects are interesting. He says if MOS doesn't rocket, WB's not moving forward on JLA.

That sounds more like posturing to me, because WB has to answer to shareholders and if they can't make superhero projects work now, then why aren't they selling the entire division, recoup a few billion and just retain some distribution rights?

[MIB41]

I can agree with most of that. I do certainly agree that the gamble paid off, but it wasn't a master plan. It was really born out of desperation because no studio was interested in moving on anything outside the big two. It ties into why WB stopped working on DC properties; the superhero genre was hitting a massive lull.

If they could have gotten a studio to do an Avengers movie anytime between '05-'08, with a cast of Cap, Hawkeye, Widow, and whoever, they would have done it.

The real secret was 3D, which was done in post-production. Without that ability to spike ticket prices, Thor, Cap and Avengers wouldn't have performed as well.

I've read enough of your posts that you know business. It makes a huge difference to be able to charge 1 person for the price of 2, which is what 3D provided.

Goyer's comments at Reddit about DC/WB projects are interesting. He says if MOS doesn't rocket, WB's not moving forward on JLA.

That sounds more like posturing to me, because WB has to answer to shareholders and if they can't make superhero projects work now, then why aren't they selling the entire division, recoup a few billion and just retain some distribution rights?

I agree 100%. And I think the posturing points are spot on. For myself, the studio's comments have catered to some of my concerns about this film. They've spoken about it to the point of near desperation. So there is definitely an air of "doubt" in their tone. And I'm not sure if that's born from uncertainty in the film itself or whether they're unsure of the character's overall appeal to reach the heights they need for future projects. I think your shareholders comment sums it up nicely.

[Operation:Mego]

In April (along with this original announcement) the studio are eyeing Joseph Kosinski (Tron: Legacy and Oblivion) to direct the [Green Lantern] sequel. That same month, David S. Goyer revealed that he would love to work on the sequel.

[huedell]

That sounds more like posturing to me, because WB has to answer to shareholders and if they can't make superhero projects work now, then why aren't they selling the entire division, recoup a few billion and just retain some distribution rights?

...and as a DC fan--and overall superhero fan, THAT would make my heart sink.

What goes up, must come down, yes, but I wouldn't wanna see an event such as that when things "come down" for superhero movies.

As you can tell, I agree with about all you've been posting. And I believe that most moviegoers and stockholders feel like some of the other outspoken posters here, as in they feel that Marvel knew what they were doing all along with their movies instead of mostly just going with the flow and getting lucky. That mindset creates narrower scenarios in faith in the "superhero market".

So if WB sells off DC, I'd predict there'd be a mainstream knee-jerk reaction, and it'd hurt all superhero movies from both DC AND Marvel... and, not only that, it could put the big 2 in the dark ages once again. Let's hope DC/WB salvages this potential debacle before a good amount of cool DCU characters are barred from making it to the big-budget big screen.

I want a Wonder Woman movie... an Aquaman movie.... a Creeper movie!

[madmarva]

If Warner did put DC on the block, it would be interesting if Disney would bite.

I Would not want to see Marvel and DC under one roof for the sake of competition, but it would be interesting to know if Disney would see it as a worthwhile venture to claim Superman and Batman, with all the rest in tow.

[huedell]

If Warner did put DC on the block, it would be interesting if Disney would bite.

I Would not want to see Marvel and DC under one roof for the sake of competition, but it would be interesting to know if Disney would see it as a worthwhile venture to claim Superman and Batman, with all the rest in tow.

Geez madmarva, between you and hedrap, I feel I'm adrift in "One-step-aheada-me Land". The Disney possibility is indeed interesting. As much as the "decreased competition" angle sounds like a detriment to this scenario, my gut has me feeling that this would be more positive than negative. Maybe it's because I was weaned on Marvel/DC WGSH Megos. In some ways, DC joined with Marvel would bring things "full circle" with me, even if it was a bad idea otherwise.

Could you imagine a live action cross-over AVENGERS VS. JLA?

[hedrap]

If they do sell it would actually be to Legendary.

Right now, Legendary is the hedge firm "production partner" that finances the actual development/shooting/post of the movie, while WB pays for the advertising, marketing & distribution. So if it costs a 100Mil to shoot, it's about 100 to A/M/D.

The guy who founded Legendary is supposedly a longtime comic guy, which I think it's true when you look at everything he's backed. WB has become very, very dependent on Legendary, to the point where they are the one really calling the shots now, but, WB's card is they own great property rights, where Legedary has to lease them, (Godzilla), co-produce (MOS, TDK), or originally develop, (Pacific Rim).

So what I've thoughts' coming, is WB will sell DC to Legendary as a way to liquidate some assets while not really losing them from the film slate, as big deals like this always have a concrete distribution agreement where the studio gets first option on anything in development. If they pass on it, Legendary can shop for another distributor. Legendary in turn gets one of the biggest IP libraries on the planet and becomes the new Marvel overnight, with the ability to really dig into the DC catalog.

I mean, how in the hell has WB not produced a House of Mystery/Secrets show for one of their cable channels? Because they don't want to fork over the development money because they have a hundred other shows that need development dollars, and the hope is to find the next Friends or ER. Legendary wouldn't have that problem, and if WB passed on the pilot, they could shop it to a streaming service and not worry about the in-house warfare that has plagued WB for decades.

...and Goyer said on Reditt he wants Wonder Woman, so I think that's a done deal now. Question is, if he'll only do it if he gets to direct. After Blade 3 though, nobody trusts him in that chair.

[Bruce Banner]

This site: http://www.liveforfilms.com/2013/05/...-league-movie/ has an interesting rumour concerning the possible JLA movie plot.
Totally unconfirmed, but still worth a look.

I can unofficially confirm that the movie WILL use Henry Cavill’s Superman, as well as an already established Batman (who has been left open enough to use Nolan’s John Blake if the situation were to arise *wink wink*), and will follow the two as they try to piece together the Justice League when a new threat shows up with Earth conquest on his mind.

Following the events of “Man of Steel,” NASA and Lex Luthor begin sending signals out into space to attract other alien beings which reach Apokolips, prompting an invasion of “Hunger Dogs” sent by Darkseid and lead by Kalibak, Orion, and the Female Furies.

Superman and Batman, knowing they won’t be able to fight them alone, recruit the help of Green Lantern, (who’s left open to be either Ryan Reynold’s Hal Jordan or John Stewart, either way they’ll be using the already established Green Lantern corps from the Martin Campbell film), J’onn J’onzz the Martian Manhunter(who is confirmed as not being CGI), who comes to protect Earth after escaping from a prison on Apokolips because he knows the next planet on Darkseid’s mind will be Mars once he conquers Earth, the Barry Allen incarnation of the Flashwho will gain his powers in the first 1/3rd of the film, and Princess Diana of Themyscira, who is ready to leave Themyscira and refuses to continue standing by and not use her ability to help the Justice League when she finds out the world is in crisis.

This isn’t campy lasso using, invisible plane driving, star spangled banner Linda Carter Wonder Woman either, she’s got super strength and truly kicks ***.

As I don’t want to give away too much information, I’ll leave it as that but the movie will absolutely blow your mind, it’s filled with cameos of lesser known heroes and villains (like Lobo and the baddies Mongrul and Sinestro to name a few!) to establish them for the sequel, all while maintaining a consistent “grounded in reality” but not TOO realistic approach that fans like so much today.

The heroes save the day, and the army of “Hunger Dogs” retreat back to Apokolips, where a furious Darkseid punishes Kalibak while Orion begins to question his loyalty to his father. Darkseid then goes to the furthest depths of Apokolips to release a prisoner known only as “Doomsday” and sets the movie up immediately for a sequel following a quick glimpse of the baddest villain in the DC universe. Prepare to be rocked is all I have to say.