DC Studios THREAD - GunnVerse Begins - Chapter ONE: Gods & Monsters

[everysingletime]

Whedon is extremely experienced at writing strong, likeable female characters

See: Buffy, Angel, Serenity, Firely, Dollhouse, hell you can throw Avengers in there for Black Widow and then there's Agents of Shield (see Agent May, Skye)

Strong female characters is actually part of his M.O.

He can write Wonder Woman in his sleep, guaranteed. I think the guy was a feminist in his past life.

 

[rfx45]

I am not saying he can't, I am saying back in 2005, he is relatively unknown in the cinematic world. His resume is just tv shows and again i liked Buffy but I don't think it was great. Dollhouse was just ok. Looking at those and the script he turned over then seeing Catwoman and Elektra flop, you wouldn't be more hesitant to make an investment especially if you only plan to make one film every year or two?


I also call it hindsight because now people will think it is a guaranteed success because of Avengers. Yes you maybe a Buffy fan and a big comic book geek who knew him way back then but not many does. Buffy was still a tv show on CW/WB that got by on mediocre ratings. Its become a cult classic but if you were looking for a blockbuster (which I agree is a terrible way to go but what you gon' do) then I myself might be hesitant too.

It's way too easy to say today "yes! I will hire Whedon right away, take my money now!" but back in 2005, that is still a big risk and a big deal. Plus with the writers strike completely shutting down the JL film from 2006, WW might have been scrapped too if it actually made production.

Hell Whedon made Cabin in the Woods (which I loved) in 2009 and it didn't release til 2012. Studio problems yes but if they knew Whedon would make a guarranteed hit, they would have risked it and just released the film to make money asap but they didn't. The film pretty much got released after the much hype of he was getting before the release of the Avengers. That just showed how much faith the studios had on Whedon, it was a mere $30m film that couldn't even come out. before someone makes the point, again I know it isn't all on Whedon, the company was in bankruptcy but if Whedon were so good back then as he is now, it would have released much much sooner. Make that film today and it'll release when it is suppose to because Whedon has that reputation and name now, just like Nolan.

 

[illmaticsoulchild]

Courtesy of SSH..

Jena Malone Confirmed for Mystery Role in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Back in August, The Hunger Games‘ Jena Malone was spotted on the Michigan set of her Sucker Punch director’s upcoming comic book showdown, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Today, The Hollywood Reporter confirms that Malone will, indeed, appear in the film, although the precise role is anybody’s guess. That hasn’t stopped the speculation, however, with the most recent rumor being that Malone will play a female version of Robin. While that may end up being the case, she might also be playing someone else altogether. Read on to find out exactly what we know.

This morning, local Michigan news WILX10 posted the below video claiming that the Zack Snyder film will feature a female version of Robin. That certainly does coincide with Snyder’s Frank Miller-fueled approach to the material and it’s quite possible that we’ll be seeing some iteration of The Dark Knight Returns‘ Carrie Kelley on the big screen. Even if that’s the case, however, Malone isn’t necessarily going to be playing the part. Kelley was, after all, only 13-years old in The Dark Knight Returns.

Starring Henry Cavill, Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne, Diane Lane, Jesse Eisenberg, Jeremy Irons, Holly Hunter and Scoot McNairy, the Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice hits theaters on March 25, 2016.

I don't care what role it is, glad that she'll be part of the film.

 

[illmaticsoulchild]

Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe not Robin, but Oracle?

 

[rfx45]

That would make more sense, she can provide the intel on Supes?

 

[Master Zik]

Nah b. It's not hindsight. It's just stating the repeated blunders WB has made and then they basically shoot themselves in the foot for.

They decided to make Catwoman, that's on them. Shooting down Whedon after the fact. It really aint about Avengers to me. I watched all them seasons of Buffy. WB just make bad decisions a lot with this area when they're not making Batman movies.

I'm not buying the female superhero movie won't work bull ****. That's just continued repeated ignorance on their part. It's not that female superhero movies won't make money, it's that bad movies don't make money and hell you can call that hindsight if you want too but I'm sure the ppl involved in **** movies know they're making **** movies at some point.

That is obviously hindsight because of Whedons success. Despite Schumachesr crappy films, those made some money, doubling the budget was more than enough to make a film profitable back then.

No it's not hindsight. You're talking about Avengers. I'm talking about Buffy. Hell Dollhouse, Firefly. Those were all at the time for the most point. It's not success after the fact. It's success during.

WB making Catwoman isn't an excuse for not okaying Whedon's WW movie unless the movie was so bad WB was gonna go bankrupt and that wasn't the case. It's not a real excuse. It's ignorance perpetuated by the Hollywood hype machine.

Plus you guys are acting like Whedons is going to be a sure fire hit already,

Since you're making Catwoman the bar I could guarantee you it'd be better than that and make more money.

Like I said before though, going off Whedon's resume it would've been good.

I would have loved to see it but if I were in the CEOs shoes, I can see where he is coming from after seeing Catwoman and Elektra flop, that already give any female led film to come after a bad taste. Again it's not like DC didn't try, look at all the multiple other scripts they looked at and the tv pilots that was shot where they managed to make Palicki look like Chyna.

Again, that just proves how stupid that person or those ppl were. Type of idiots that play it safe constantly and aren't looking to make big money. High risk, high reward. That's how you start making money in that biz. None of the great directors or respected screenwriters first hit movies were guaranteed to be hit movies at the time. They were given a chance by somebody taking a risk and believing in their work.

I don' care how many time you keep bringing it up but Elektra and Catwoman don't got **** to do with this. They should be taking on each project off the merits of who is involved. Not saying female led movies aren't in this year and shutting down any pitches.

DC gets an E for effort then but all I'm seeing is a bunch of coulda been situations when you look at their track record. I mean these examples you're giving for what they did do that didn't pan out just shows how much they suck and how stupid they were at the time. They're just a bunch of mental midgets that'll only pull the trigger when they absolutely have to or when they know they have a sure thing (Batman).

Again I completely agree with their bad decisions, lots of them, I blame the CEO and I already said that hiring Nolan was a struck of lightning but I could also see why he would be hesistant with Whedon and his WW film.

I just see how dumb of a decision it was but I'm grateful since it gave us Avengers and this thriving Marvel universe.

If the movies suck it won't make money. If they're good, they will.

This is obviously isn't true, Transformers continually make billions. TMNT made money that a sequel is on the way.

I aint even watch these movies Saw the first Transformers and couldn't make it through Dark of the Moon.

Regardless, Bay has an audience. Plus children when you talk about making movies for these cartoons that were huge for kids 30 years ago and still have toy merch selling.

I'm specifically talking about a reason for making or not making a female superhero movie. Nothing has changed from then and now. Just that they stopped giving the ******** excuses. It's just that more fans have been openly criticizing these studios for not doing it. Then a few studios started smartening up. Nothing suddenly changed. Plus there aint like there's some specific formula when you bring up Bay's movies being successful.

All these films for women are written by women so they understand how to make the film.

This is complete bull **** and quite frankly pretty shocking and limited thinking by you.

Women aren't the only ones that can write for women and understand how to make movies about women.

 

[rfx45]

Scientific formula or not, your statement was ...

If the movies suck it won't make money. If they're good, they will.

And that is simply wrong. You can make excuses all you want and find reasons about kids and China or whatever but fact is a bad movie can still make money, lots of money while you say that if it sucks then it won't make money.

And on the other side of things, a good film doesn't always make money. There are lots of examples of this. You can base "good" or "bad" via your opinion or RT, doesn't matter, the statement is wrong.

I'm specifically talking about a reason for making or not making a female superhero movie. Nothing has changed from then and now.

A lot has changed. Men and women roles still aren't equal but there is a reason women action films are being made in masses now. I am not saying it is right but that is how it is in Hollywood. There are exceptions like Aliens but they are far and few in between for a reason. It's a trend just like anything else, you see some get some success then you start looking more into it and greenlit more of those films. This is Hollywood and they will go with what makes them money. Before it didn't make them money, some had to do with bad decisions or bad scripts but there also stands a reason why that is.

I have no doubt Whedons work would be better but to think like it will be a guaranteed hit and to think that Catwomans flop didn't play a role is just being naive. Sadly, that is a world we live in. Yes bigger risk bigger reward but you have to take the right one. WB took that risk with Halles popularity after winning the Oscar and being in XMen (which was a big hit back then) and it flopped. Studios will always look at that and base their decision on it especially if Whedons script was submitted at the same year.

And I get it, to you Whedon would have been a great choice based on Buffy alone, but that is to you, not to WB. All I am saying is I can see where WB are coming from and if you do not see it that way then I don't know what to tell you.


Again, a woman action flick is already difficult to get made and with those flops happening in the same year, it would be double/triple difficult for Whedon to get over that hump. That is how the business works, same way Singer had to shoulder the old failed Superman films budgets and it piled on to SR and made it look like a bigger failure than it really is. Is it fair for Singer? No! Did he create a good film? No but w/o that bigger budget added on to his film then SR would be considered more of a success.


If you doubt it, then just google articles about women starring in action flicks and how and why it is trending these days. Some parts from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/brave-prometheus-female-action-heroes_n_1625712.html

In fall 2009, movie producer Nina Jacobson was faced with a classic Hollywood dilemma -- to pitch or not to pitch.

Jacobson's colleague, Bryan Unkeless, had recently recommended a young adult novel he thought would make a good movie. Jacobson told The Huffington Post that she loved the book and "couldn't put it down, couldn't stop thinking about it."

She said that although she knew the movie would be expensive to make, it would be difficult to sell to the studios for another reason -- it was an action movie starring a female protagonist.

"She's 16-years-old in the book, and she's not defined by her romantic interest -- it's not a love story, though there is a romantic subplot. So in terms of the movie marketplace, it breaks a lot of the conventional wisdom about what works," Jacobson said.

But Jacobson won the approval of the book's author and sold the package to Lionsgate, which gave the movie a budget of $70 million -- just a fraction of the amount given to action tentpoles like "The Avengers" and "The Dark Knight Rises."

That all these movies were released in such quick succession is no coincidence. Instead, it marks the culmination and convergence of trends that have been emerging in the movie business for several years.

The most important such trend, according to Jeff Gomez, co-founder of movie marketing company Starlight Runner, is "the growing knowledge that women are making the decisions now with regard to entertainment choices and product choices."

From: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...male-led-action-film/251678/?single_page=true

For many years, there were even fewer opportunities for actresses in another genre: the action movie. It's long been accepted in popular culture that that the traditional "action film" is the gender-reversed mirror image of the "chick flick": a film made by men, starring men, for men. But today sees the release of two new action movies that don't conform to that rule. There's Steven Soderbergh's Haywire, which has garnered mostly positive reviews. And there's Underworld: Awakening, the fourth film in the only major "vampires vs. werewolves" franchise that isn't called Twilight, which isn't being screened for critics at all (its predecessor, 2009's Underworld: The Rise of the Lycans scored a measly 30 percent on Rotten Tomatoes). Despite the differences between the two competing releases, they're both torchbearers of a promising, relatively new genre trend: the era of big-budget action movies starring women.

There are more to read in those links, if you guys got time but to think that nothing has changed is crazy. Those two articles simply talk about the rise of action films led by women and that is the change in itself. Roles are still not equal in front and behind the camera (http://time.com/3419411/women-led-blockbuster-successes-havent-killed-movie-gender-gap/) but there are more opportunities now. and studios are more open to it.

You simply cannot say nothing has changed. Whether better scripts are being turned in and they weren't before, that is change. Whether people are more open to watch them now than before, that is change. Whether the increase in writers and directors jumped from 5% to 9% in the past few years that helps get these films greenlit, that is change.

9 percent of the top 250 movies at the domestic box office last year were made by female directors. That’s substantially higher than the 2011 figure of 5 percent.

Via: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/movies/female-film-directors-slowly-gain-ground.html?_r=0


No matter how minuscule the differences are, that is still change. You can't say none of these things- trend or not, marketing change or not, hype or not, - had anything to do with todays popularity of female led action films because it obviously does. Those are changes in the industry.

I also agree about this:

That's not to say, of course, that an adapted action film starring a woman need be terrible; Hollywood's two recent attempts to make a female-led superhero movie—2004's Catwoman and 2005's Elektra—have been dismal failures, but they were failures not of concept, but of execution

But again, you have to see where some would be reluctant to make films that these male CEOs obviously do not understand. They genuinely thought putting Halle in a skimpy catsuit will bring in big bucks. That is the sad part but that way of thinking has changed, not as much as it should be but it had changed and that is something that has changed. You can't say WB is the only one who had this train of thought when the movie industry has had about ~50 years of history of it being true? To stop thinking that way is change.

And yes I am emphasizing the word "change" because there is change. You can't say that nothing has.

This is complete bull **** and quite frankly pretty shocking and limited thinking by you.

Well i concede to that, it was an exaggeration on my part, same way you exaggerated that if a film sucks it wont make money.

Not all are written by women but it is no coincidence that Twilight and Divergent and Hunger Games are all written by women. That was what I meant.

 

[Master Zik]

Scientific formula or not, your statement was ...

If the movies suck it won't make money. If they're good, they will.

And that is simply wrong. You can make excuses all you want and find reasons about kids and China or whatever but fact is a bad movie can still make money, lots of money while you say that if it sucks then it won't make money.

So you're saying for all the ppl that saw the movie that liked and thought it was good they're wrong?

You're not pretending that there's an objective right and wrong about opinions on movies

And on the other side of things, a good film doesn't always make money. There are lots of examples of this. You can base "good" or "bad" via your opinion or RT, doesn't matter, the statement is wrong.

Your criteria for good and bad must be different than mine.

I'm specifically talking about a reason for making or not making a female superhero movie. Nothing has changed from then and now.

A lot has changed and to think that the main action roles between men and women are equal throughout is insane.

What's insane is you saying women are writing movies for women led movies now and that's why they understand the film as if that can not happen for men.

10 years ago isn't the 50s so I'm sticking with what I'm saying about what has and hasn't changed.

They still aren't equal but there is a reason women action films ar ebeing made in masses now.

I'm not talking about equality.

I am not saying it is right but that is how it is in Hollywood.

This is where you're possibly confused. Just because that's how it is doesn't mean it can not be another way. Key word is can as in "able to". The lack of female led movie roles in action movies or superheroes is a choice made by the ppl making the movies. It's not some heavily researched and proven fact that women led movies do not make money. It's simply that there hasn't been anywhere near the same amount compared to male led movies. You start one way because of the way society is and you'll get more of the same. That is not evidence that female led movies can't be profittable.

There are exceptions like Aliens but they are far and few in between for a reason.

It's not an exception. It's just an example of what I'm talking about done right.

It's a trend just like anything else, you see some get some success then you start looking more into it and greenlit more of those films.

No. Saying female led movies are a trend is just plain offensive and ignorant. If you're gonna say that you should also be saying male led films is a trend that's managed to keep going for like over 70 years back to silent film.

This is Hollywood and they will go with what makes them money.

And they actively chose not to make money with female led films.

Before it didn't make them money, some had to do with bad decisions or bad scripts but there also stands a reason why that is.

The same way there's a reason for why movies with bad scripts with bad leads do terribly.

I have no doubt Whedons work would be better but to think like it will be a guaranteed hit and to think that Catwomans flop didn't play a role is just being naive.

Your the one being purposely daft and evasive. You keep saying "guaranteed hit" like you're not reading my posts like you haven't been replying me about this topic for a few posts now. I did not say anything about a guaranteed hit. If you're gonna keep running with 'you guys are acting like it's going to be a guaranteed hit' please address them not me. Since you're making Elektra and Catwoman the bar I'm telling you the only guarantee here is that Whedon's WW would definitely be better than both of those and I'm not basing that off of hindsight with Avengers but off of his previous creative work prior. I really don't want to have to keep repeating this.

Sadly, that is a world we live in. Yes bigger risk bigger reward but you have to take the right one. WB took that risk with Halles popularity after winning the Oscar and being in XMen (which was a big hit back then) and it flopped. Studios will always look at that and base their decision on it especially if Whedons script was submitted at the same year.

Case in point the ppl at WB making decisions are stupid mental midgets. They allot for one risk movie a year and they blew their load on a solo Catwoman movie with material not even based off of anything in the comics thinking it'd make bank off of Halle's role in X-Men which got no praise but critcism. They're ******* idiots and you're just driving it home at this point.

And I get it, to you Whedon would have been a great choice based on Buffy alone, but that is to you, not to WB. All I am saying is I can see where WB are coming from and if you do not see it that way then I don't know what to tell you.

Not just Buffy but his other work at the time. He had written or co-written for several films and tv shows he created by 2005 and by August of that same year wrote and directed his Firefly movie Serenity.

WB instead decided to go with trash or the safe movie with another Batman movie.

Again, a woman action flick is already difficult to get made and with those flops happening in the same year, it would be double/triple difficult for Whedon to get over that hump. That is how the business works, same way Singer had to shoulder the old failed Superman films budgets and it piled on to SR and made it look like a bigger failure than it really is. Is it fair for Singer? No! Did he create a good film? No but w/o that bigger budget added on to his film then SR would be considered more of a success.

So those who run the business like the ones in WB are not smart. They're too simple minded to know how to get the right ppl in place to make a good movie that'll make money that has a female lead. That's all you're really saying here.

Singer made a trash Superman film. That's his fault. If it was good you wouldn't even be making these excuses. I look at Returns and WB's other poor decisions and they should've just went through with the NicCage the way they run their movie studio. That WB had multiple failed Superman films and made the next guy to make the next supes shoulder the loss shows how poorly WB is ran

If you doubt it, then just google articles about women starring in action flicks and how and why it is trending these days. Some parts from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/brave-prometheus-female-action-heroes_n_1625712.html

In fall 2009, movie producer Nina Jacobson was faced with a classic Hollywood dilemma -- to pitch or not to pitch.

Jacobson's colleague, Bryan Unkeless, had recently recommended a young adult novel he thought would make a good movie. Jacobson told The Huffington Post that she loved the book and "couldn't put it down, couldn't stop thinking about it."

She said that although she knew the movie would be expensive to make, it would be difficult to sell to the studios for another reason -- it was an action movie starring a female protagonist.

"She's 16-years-old in the book, and she's not defined by her romantic interest -- it's not a love story, though there is a romantic subplot. So in terms of the movie marketplace, it breaks a lot of the conventional wisdom about what works," Jacobson said.

But Jacobson won the approval of the book's author and sold the package to Lionsgate, which gave the movie a budget of $70 million -- just a fraction of the amount given to action tentpoles like "The Avengers" and "The Dark Knight Rises."

That all these movies were released in such quick succession is no coincidence. Instead, it marks the culmination and convergence of trends that have been emerging in the movie business for several years.

The most important such trend, according to Jeff Gomez, co-founder of movie marketing company Starlight Runner, is "the growing knowledge that women are making the decisions now with regard to entertainment choices and product choices."

From: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...male-led-action-film/251678/?single_page=true

For many years, there were even fewer opportunities for actresses in another genre: the action movie. It's long been accepted in popular culture that that the traditional "action film" is the gender-reversed mirror image of the "chick flick": a film made by men, starring men, for men. But today sees the release of two new action movies that don't conform to that rule. There's Steven Soderbergh's Haywire, which has garnered mostly positive reviews. And there's Underworld: Awakening, the fourth film in the only major "vampires vs. werewolves" franchise that isn't called Twilight, which isn't being screened for critics at all (its predecessor, 2009's Underworld: The Rise of the Lycans scored a measly 30 percent on Rotten Tomatoes). Despite the differences between the two competing releases, they're both torchbearers of a promising, relatively new genre trend: the era of big-budget action movies starring women.

There are more to read in those links, if you guys got time but to think that nothing has changed is crazy. Those two articles simply talk about the rise of action films led by women and that is the change in itself. Roles are still not equal in front and behind the camera (http://time.com/3419411/women-led-blockbuster-successes-havent-killed-movie-gender-gap/) but there are more opportunities now. and studios are more open to it.

You simply cannot say nothing has changed. Whether better scripts are being turned in and they weren't before, that is change. Whether people are more open to watch them now than before, that is change. Whether the increase in writers and directors jumped from 5% to 9% in the past few years that helps get these films greenlit, that is change.

9 percent of the top 250 movies at the domestic box office last year were made by female directors. That’s substantially higher than the 2011 figure of 5 percent.

Via: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/movies/female-film-directors-slowly-gain-ground.html?_r=0


No matter how minuscule the differences are, that is still change. You can't say none of these things- trend or not, marketing change or not, hype or not, - had anything to do with todays popularity of female led action films because it obviously does. Those are changes in the industry.

I also agree about this:

That's not to say, of course, that an adapted action film starring a woman need be terrible; Hollywood's two recent attempts to make a female-led superhero movie—2004's Catwoman and 2005's Elektra—have been dismal failures, but they were failures not of concept, but of execution

But again, you have to see where some would be reluctant to make films that these male CEOs obviously do not understand. They genuinely thought putting Halle in a skimpy catsuit will bring in big bucks. That is the sad part but that way of thinking has changed, not as much as it should be but it had changed and that is something that has changed. You can't say WB is the only one who had this train of thought when the movie industry has had about ~50 years of history of it being true? To stop thinking that way is change.

And yes I am emphasizing the word "change" because there is change. You can't say that nothing has.

This is complete bull **** and quite frankly pretty shocking and limited thinking by you.

Well i concede to that, it was an exaggeration on my part, same way you exaggerated that if a film sucks it wont make money.

Not all are written by women but it is no coincidence that Twilight and Divergent and Hunger Games are all written by women.

This is just evidence of the poor practice by those running things in Hollywood. I'm not saying there's isn't a clear bias and prejudice going on. I'm not talking about opportunity when I say nothing has changed.

I'm saying that nothing has changed as far as what has been pitched. There's always been fans that wanted these type of movies then and now. There's always been ppl trying to get these movies made.

As far as your female angle that just goes to show how far they had to go to get it done. No different than if a minority wants a minority led movie and you trying to sell this bull **** that only a person of that group would be able to understand how to make that movie for that minority to be in the lead.

So I guess you're telling me what's changed is like WB other studios stopped being dumb about what sort of movies that can be made and can be successful with the right execution and the added caveat that these guy failing abysmally and running out of ideas to recycle of their own. Still sounds like it's on them.

 

[rfx45]

As usual we just reach an impasse so no point in continuing.



We feel like we aren't understanding each other.

 

[robinvandamn]

Honestly I couldn't care less for the Superman vs Batman part.. Feels like it's gonna be yadda-yadda'd anyway.

More interested in the world building they're doing for this film. It's interesting that they're trying to use one film to essentially launch their entire universe, takes balls i guess

 

[rfx45]

Not sure why you would think that?

It started with MoS then that leads to BvS and then to JL.

I mean IM practically launched that whole universe, actually it was just that end credit scene with Nick Fury that opened it up and it worked from there.

 

[robinvandamn]

Not sure why you would think that?

It started with MoS then that leads to BvS and then to JL.

I mean IM practically launched that whole universe, actually it was just that end credit scene with Nick Fury that opened it up and it worked from there.

This is like if Captain America, Thor, Hulk and Fury were all nonchalantly chilling on Tony's couch in the end credits

It's different and commendable to me in some ways because some of the heroes that are going to be introduced in this world are already established figures within their universe, we just didn't know about them.

They're using this film to introduce Cyborg and Flash in some capacity, probably nothing more than cameos... Along with Wonder Woman, Lex, Robin(??) and a New Batman. It's ballsy is all I'm saying

 

[rfx45]

There's some risk but the core members of JL were more known and popular than IM, Thor, Cap, etc... I say were because that was the case when those films came out, Marvel had to do it that way so people knew who they were and it worked great.

Not saying it wouldn't work with DC but these guys are very popular already and most of their back stories are already known. The animated series and animated films did wonders to their popularity. They are like the XMen, you can start them out as a team and then go to their origin films after, DC just has to execute better.

Everyone knows Supes, Bats and WWs origins, most know Flash, GL, Aquaman, Martian Manhunter and Cyborg too, most have been covered in the animated shows and films, tv show (Flash) and past films (GL). They can dive deeper in their solo film either as prequel or flashbacks, just not like Snyders MoS back and forths (I had no problem with it but I don't really want to see that format again ).


So yeah, I think it's easier with these group of guys to go the route they are taking. I mean it's not confirmed that all the heroes will be in BvS and in JL, they can easily shorthand the heroes history as they join the team. Watch the JL animated films and see how their formation works w/o going deep to each characters. And a JL film could actually focus on one or two characters so that it helps them develop. Check Justice League: WAR, it is a JL film but it focused on GL a lot and even felt more like the leader than Supes and Bats. It also showed more Shazam and how he is than the rest of the members and I think most will agree that it is a pretty good film.

 

[everysingletime]

That last page..

Holy wall of text, Batman

 

[Bend_The_Knee]

So metallo confirmed for BvsS?


I remember him from the cartoon.

 

[Master Zik]

So metallo confirmed for BvsS?


I remember him from the cartoon.

He probably wasn't black either.

 

[jadaqwest]

why cyborg????thats like doing a war machine movie.....there are too many dcu characters that couldve been done first batman beyond would be different plus you could still have present batman films with no interference hell teen titans wouldve been better imo

 

[outlaw8413]

I personally like Cyborg but it feels like he's their equivalent of Ironman (a guy who uses tech) and also covers their diversity. Because before Falcon the MCU was looking REAL white. Hell, they even made Zoë Saldana green before exposing that beautiful brown skin

 

[sunshineblotters]

lol at arguing about a WW giving those weak *** previous movies and shows as an example.

 

[KingParappa]

I hope Jenna is playing Batwoman... sure she's not pale enough but Batwoman in a movie? I'm in.

 

[paulwest1985]

I hope Jenna is playing Batwoman... sure she's not pale enough but Batwoman in a movie? I'm in.

The rumor is that she's playing Carrie Kelly aka Robin.

 

[raider5]

 Quote:

I hope Jenna is playing Batwoman... sure she's not pale enough but Batwoman in a movie? I'm in.

The rumor is that she's playing Carrie Kelly aka Robin.

Not sure how I feel about this...I know this is suppose to be based on an "older" and "more established" Batman character, and is suppose to be based off the Dark Knight Returns...but are they really just going to bypass all the other Robins? I hope this story just doesn't have a lot of missing holes in it in terms of Batman and his back story...but then I don't want them to be back tracking as much neither & re-tell an Origins story again. Just writing this seems conflicting to me...I don't even know how they will give Batman a back story in this without taking up too much time away from the actual B v S...

 

[rfx45]

I think someone here posted that she might also be the Oracle.


At this point it's nothing more than a rumor. She could be playing a bystander Supes saves for all we know.



As for other Robins, it has been heavily rumored months ago that Nightwing will make a cameo in the film so they aren't ignoring other Robins existence, chances are they'll touch up on it in hi solo film especially if Nightwing does make an appearance.

 

[rfx45]

Outside of Batman Beyond, Static Shock is probably the most requested so WB really rolling the dice now...

Warner Bros. Unveils First Development Slate From New Digital Unit

Read full article here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...s-first-development-742586?utm_source=twitter

The digital division has been named Blue Ribbon Content

Warner Bros. is raising the curtain on its digital production unit.

The studio has named the division Blue Ribbon Content and has unveiled a development slate of short-form, live-action series that range from a comic book adaptation to a Girl Scouts spoof to a virtual reality experience featuring Batman.

The Blue Ribbon banner is headed by Sam Register, an animation veteran who was tapped as president of Warner Bros. Animation and Warner Digital Series in April. Register's team includes Andrew Mellett, senior vice president of distribution and strategy who manages the division's financial operations, business affairs and distribution and sponsorship deals.

The action series include Static Shock, an adaptation of the Static comic from writer-producer-director Reginald Hudlin (Django Unchained).

 

[kvsm23vs24]

I loved Static Shock as a kid.