luke-o 0 Report post Posted February 4, 2007 The whole revival of Batman and Superman leaves a perfect door open to go with plans that were only in early stages, the batman vs superman movie for example, and as 2Gold stated, the JLA movie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted February 4, 2007 In all honesty, I think a 'Justice League' movie would fail on multiple levels. A show is a great outlet for a team because it lets you develop, and you can showcase different people throughout the season. A movie, on the other hand, would get jumbled really quickly, plus the amount of money for the contracts needed to do a Justice League (Superman and Batman, we have a Wally West coming up, a Wonder Woman) would be outrageous. Plus you have the timeframe differences between Bale's Batman and Routh Superman (Bale is only just starting out, Routh has been around for years, etc...), and who would make a good villain... it's all just too much going on. It'd be a scattered mess. Justice League, just like "The Watchmen", is not a good concept for a movie. A great concept for a show or miniseries, but not a movie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
luke-o 0 Report post Posted February 4, 2007 Just like the Avengers, but i can still see that there going to atempt a live action film on them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2007 I HATE that. I DID get the movie, just some of the jokes fell flat. That "you just obviously didn't get the movie" when someone doesn't call it the greatest thing ever invented has always been the lamest excuse when there was nothing confusing about 'Serenity' that couldn't be understood. Jesus, chill out. I miss read what you said because saying doctor brother doesn't make any sense. As for the undead loser. He was a doctor, he was a brother, so he was doctor brother character. You should have just said DOCTOR. I thought you meant doctor's sister (River) and that it was dumb that she survied. And if you thought it was dumb she survived, then yes, you don't get the movie. But I just didn't understand what you said because you wrote it poorly.But he didn't write the ACTUALLY movie. A lot of the times, writers move away from a treatment and go there own way. He did a treatment, that's writing involved with the film and the film was horrible so he gets one of the shots. Even taking away that one, his track record with characters not his own isn't good. Whatever, I don't know why I am even defending Joss right now. He doesn't impress me like he used to. Serenity wasn't THAT good. I mean it was alright, but I get bored when I watch it again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anya 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2007 I am glad. Now I don't have to go see it. I say Buffy got better when they left high school. Season 4, 5 and 6 is that show's peak. Angel got better every year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2007 Wow. thats some impressive fucking up of the quoting system there Mole! Honestly, I don't see how people didn't appreciate the kick ass at the end of Serenity, although I too will agree that maybe Simon should have died. but overall, start to finish, that was just one incredible film. Buffy, like angel sucked its first year, got better in the second(well, Buffy got incredible inthe second, angel got better) Buffy seasons 3-5, some good goddamn television. Season six is poloraizing. I loved it, I see why others didn't. Season 7 started off with so much promise, had some high points near the end (Caleb was a kick ass character) but just plain fizzled towards the end. Angel, from season 3 on was some of the greatest TV I have ever seen in every aspect imaginable. From acting to character development, to overall story arch...just incredible. Firefly...that shit ruled from day one. As for film, Joss's only non completely bastardized forays into writing was Serenity, Toy Story and that last Alien movie (yes I know the studio changed the end, but seroiusly, who cares. That movie sucked. If it had been a movie about some random aliens and some random chick that was supposed to be able to kick alien ass, maybe. But not as a ALIEN movie.) So he is 2-1. And I am happy he didn't get Wonder Woman, because despite her kick ass in comics, it would have been a cheesy ass movie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ginger Snaps 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2007 "Creative differences" must mean they didn't want him giving the role of Wonder Woman to one of his friends. No Charisma Carpenter as WW now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlackFlagg 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2007 maybe they wanted Wonder Woman to fight a giant spider Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
luke-o 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2007 maybe they wanted Wonder Woman to fight a giant spider Nice refrence[/kevin smith] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2007 Since it seems no one else is going to say it... Whedon pulls out of Wonder Woman lol Still funny to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisMWaters 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2007 Well, looks like we're gonna have to wait another 10 years for rumors of a Wonder Woman movie to come up. *Remembers about 10-12 years ago when I read an article in Starlog about how Terry Farrell (Jadzia Dax on "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" and the diner girl from "Becker") was considered for the role. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2007 "Creative differences" must mean they didn't want him giving the role of Wonder Woman to one of his friends. No Charisma Carpenter as WW now. Or Morena Baccarin. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
starvenger 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2007 Its hard to gage someone's track record for writing movies when the scripts he writes aren't the ones that actually get filmed 99% of the time. The only movie I'm aware of that he actually wrote what showed up on the screen was Serenity, which was great until the ending. That's true, because it generally means one of two things - the writer's vision didn't jibe with the directors or the script sucked. Which I suppose says more about his ability to play ball with others than about his writing skills. Speaking of which, his final Astoninshing X-Men arc better be good, because the last one was ass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Chaos 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2007 "Creative differences" must mean they didn't want him giving the role of Wonder Woman to one of his friends. No Charisma Carpenter as WW now. Or Morena Baccarin. Honestly, I don't think Whedon was going down that route. I remember Charisma Carpenter saying in an interview she was pretty eager for the role and was putting off having another baby because of it, and Whedon response was along the lines of "she'll at least get an audition but I really don't think its for her." Plus, Whedon doesn't actually get along with most of the actors he's worked with: Sarah Michelle Gellar can't stand him and warned Eliza Dushku off doing a Faith spin off, Nicholas Brendan felt he was treated badly towards the end of buffy, and David Boreanaz was complaining about him in a tv guide interview last year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bobobrazil1984 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2007 according to him, they never even got close to any discussions abut the leading role yet, as he was still writing the script. ANyways, on almost the same day, David Goyer was also removed from "The Flash". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2007 Its hard to gage someone's track record for writing movies when the scripts he writes aren't the ones that actually get filmed 99% of the time. The only movie I'm aware of that he actually wrote what showed up on the screen was Serenity, which was great until the ending. That's true, because it generally means one of two things - the writer's vision didn't jibe with the directors or the script sucked. Which I suppose says more about his ability to play ball with others than about his writing skills. Yeah, but most Hollywood films are usually made by committees of writers and producers who completely change scripts for reasons that are more commerical than artistic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
starvenger 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2007 Its hard to gage someone's track record for writing movies when the scripts he writes aren't the ones that actually get filmed 99% of the time. The only movie I'm aware of that he actually wrote what showed up on the screen was Serenity, which was great until the ending. That's true, because it generally means one of two things - the writer's vision didn't jibe with the directors or the script sucked. Which I suppose says more about his ability to play ball with others than about his writing skills. Yeah, but most Hollywood films are usually made by committees of writers and producers who completely change scripts for reasons that are more commerical than artistic. Definitely true. I should've added producers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dubq 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2007 http://www.whedon.info/article.php3?id_article=20613 sez: "Wonder Woman" Movie by Jennison & Strickland to be a WWII parody ? Warner Bros. Pictures and Silver Pictures have bought a spec script for the DC Comics character, Wonder Woman from newcomers Matthew Jennison and Brent Strickland. Jennison and Strickland are pretty unknown scenarists. They have worked on parody movies like "Beerfest" (Two brothers travel to Germany for Oktoberfest, only to stumble upon secret, centuries-old competition described as a "Fight Club" with beer games) and "Soul Plane" (Things get raucously funny aboard the maiden flight of a black-owned airline, thanks to some last-minute passenger additions). It is understood that the Jennison-Strickland script is set against the backdrop of World War II. However, Joss Whedon was hired in 2005 to write the script and direct; his script is set in the present day. The risk is very high that "Wonder Woman" Movie will not a be a serious comic movie like X-Men, but only a parody of the 70’s tv series... This was reported after the news that he pulled out of the flim, FYI. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
starvenger 0 Report post Posted February 6, 2007 http://www.whedon.info/article.php3?id_article=20613 sez: "Wonder Woman" Movie by Jennison & Strickland to be a WWII parody ? Warner Bros. Pictures and Silver Pictures have bought a spec script for the DC Comics character, Wonder Woman from newcomers Matthew Jennison and Brent Strickland. Jennison and Strickland are pretty unknown scenarists. They have worked on parody movies like "Beerfest" (Two brothers travel to Germany for Oktoberfest, only to stumble upon secret, centuries-old competition described as a "Fight Club" with beer games) and "Soul Plane" (Things get raucously funny aboard the maiden flight of a black-owned airline, thanks to some last-minute passenger additions). It is understood that the Jennison-Strickland script is set against the backdrop of World War II. However, Joss Whedon was hired in 2005 to write the script and direct; his script is set in the present day. The risk is very high that "Wonder Woman" Movie will not a be a serious comic movie like X-Men, but only a parody of the 70’s tv series... Not a serious movie... ya think? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted February 6, 2007 I don't see that really happening. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites