Super Heroes Assemble: Part Two
Super Heroes Unite!
Here we are again to go over the upcoming super hero films that Hollywood has currently in production. Like my last hub on this topic, I'll tell you some of the pros and cons about each movie as well as some confirmed and rumored information about it as well. Take in mind, all these films are currently in production and are subject to change at anytime. Therefore, be sure to check your local listings for any changes.
What you are about to read is part two of a five part hub series on upcoming superhero movies that we can possibly expect to see down the road. With part 4 and 5 being my top ten lists for the best and worst superhero movies ever made. Seeing as how I covered almost every possible Marvel Movie in development, I see it only fair that in this new chapter that we'll be discussing upcoming D.C. and Vertigo comics (both are owned by Warner Bros.) movies as well. Therefore, I hope you all enjoy reading.
D.C. and Vertigo Comics Big Game Plan
Before superhero movies started to become such a popular genre in films, Warner Bros. was unmatched by anyone. Like Disney was for the longest time in animated films, Warner Bros. didn't seem to have a rival to worry about when it came to producing top quality superhero films. Sure, there were a few posers that tried like the 1990's version of Captain America, but they were hardly a threat for D.C./Warner Bros. to worry about. Of course, there was Brandon Lee's surprise hit "The Crow" and Jim Carrey's comical success, "The Mask", but none of them ever established franchises worthy enough to be compared to the likes of the Batman and Superman series.
Unfortunately, D.C. was never able to generate any other successful films outside of Batman and Superman during their unopposed run. As films like "Supergirl", "Catwoman", "Steel", and others bombed badly. But hey at least Christopher Reeves first two Superman movies did pretty well, but it was rather sad they couldn't repeat the success in the last three Superman movies.
Tim Burton's Batman did pretty well, until Joel Schumacher took over and f***ed things up. Thankfully, that left the door open though for Christopher Nolan to do an even darker, grittier and realistic portrayal of the Dark Knight, that seems to have immediately won over the majority of Batman fans out there. I guess this means the only true superhero film that Warner Bros. has going for it...is Batman.
Which is kind of sad to be quite honest. As one would think with this sudden popularity increase of superhero movies, that WB would want to get in on the ground floor and do more movies based on D.C. characters. However, what most people fail to understand is that unlike Marvel Studios, Warner Bros. has other obligations to make movies of various genres of films. Where as Marvel now owns it's own studio where it's solely dedicated to making movies based off their name brands that aren't licensed out to other studios like Sony and Fox. Warner has other properties to think about like the upcoming Harry Potter movies and the soon to be released "Inception" movie to promote. Think about it. Would you honestly put aside a lot of money into developing a character like "The Flash" over a sequel to "Harry Potter?" Take in mind regardless of your personal opinion about that movie series, that still won't diminish the fact that it's the most highly successful movie franchise ever made. Thus, you have to look at this like a businessman would. Would you rather a) go with a sure fire winner like Harry Potter with an established fan base? Or option b) put that on hold, so you can produce a "Flash" movie that may or may not do well at the box office? Seriously, if you had to invest your own money into this, which would you pick?
However, it seems many movie execs at Warner Bros. aren't naive and stupid to ignore the success Marvel is having off this sudden surge in superhero movies. Therefore, to counter Marvel's sudden production of Marvel Studios and it's new partnership with Disney, Warner Bros. has officially formed it's new Studio called D.C. Entertainment. Where their purpose much like Marvel Studios, is dedicated solely to producing the Vertigo and D.C. Comics brand name through various medias like video games, movies, and TV shows. Warner Bros. also promises that once the "Harry Potter" franchise comes to an end next year, D.C. Comics will become it's new tent pole for epic franchise films. Even mentioning word they would even try put up characters from MAD magazine as well onto various media platforms like TV or movies. I guess this means we could end up seeing a "Spy vs. Spy" movie. Although, I'm not sure how that would work, but we'll have to wait and see. Personally, I'd love if they made a "Spy vs. Spy" cartoon series instead if you want my honest opinion. Will Warner Bros. and D.C. Entertainment master plan work? Only time will tell. Sure, they may not have the quantity of films scheduled for release like Marvel has, but can they make up for it in quality perhaps? Maybe. However, lets take a look at what D.C. Entertainment has rolled up their sleeve.
Green Lantern (Updated 1)
Green Lantern/Hal Jordan: Ryan Reynolds
Sinestro: Mark Strong
Carol Ferris: Blake Lively
Hector Hammond: Peter Sarsgaard
Abin Sur: Temuera Morrison
Martin Jordan: Jon Tenney
Senator Hammond: Tim Robbins
Dr. Amanda Waller: Angela Bassett
Synopsis: In a universe as vast as it is mysterious, a small but powerful force has existed for centuries. Protectors of peace and justice, they are called the Green Lantern Corps. A brotherhood of warriors sworn to keep intergalactic order, each Green Lantern wears a ring that grants him superpowers. But when a new enemy called Parallax threatens to destroy the balance of power in the Universe, their fate and the fate of Earth lie in the hands of their newest recruit, the first human ever selected: Hal Jordan.
Pros: From reading about what Martin Campbell's plans are for this movie, it sounds like he has things heading in the right direction. Casting Mark Strong as the infamous Sinestro was definitely a wise choice on the part of Warner Bros., as well as their choice in casting Blake Lively as Carol Ferris. Both who I suspect will play very significant roles if this movie spawns off to become many of a franchise.
Martin was even quoted as saying that the Green Lantern suit will be completely CGI based, as he feels the materials that the suit is made up of should not bear any resemblance to anything this planet might have seen. Thus, giving the costume an other worldly type feel to it. Which sounds highly interesting to me, as I don't think we've ever seen a superhero film before where the entire costume was CGI. Unless you want to count the flight sequences of Iron Man or the web slinging scenes of Spider-Man. However, even those movies had various moments where the costumes were not CGI based, where as in "Green Lantern" it will be all the time throughout the film.
Plus, having a great director like Martin Campbell doesn't hurt either, as he's known for directing his latest "Edge of Darkness" and two hit James Bond movies. With a creative genius like him on board, then it looks like we could be in for a treat here.
Cons: As much as I love Ryan Reynolds as a comedic actor and knowing how hard his costars say he's been working for the role, I still have my doubts about him being able to pull this off. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he's not capable of doing a role like this, but he's never been a great lead actor. A great supporting actor that can definitely play the obnoxious rude friend, but most of his movies that he stars in tend to be mediocre at best. Sure, you can bring up "Smokin' Aces" if you like but for every role that he does that's decent, he has role like "Just Friends." Therefore, if I had to come up with a percentage of how many movies that Reynolds stars in that are actually good, I would probably have to say 50/50 at best.
Of course, I could easily be wrong about that too. After all, many felt the same way about Michael Keaton playing Batman back in 1989, and look how that turned out. Therefore, I guess we'll have to wait and see if Ryan Reynolds can prove many of his skeptics wrong on this one.
Final Thoughts: For D.C. fans out there, you better pray this film becomes a huge hit. Otherwise, if it bombs, then I doubt seriously we'll ever see any other superhero movie from Warner Bros. again; outside of Batman. After all, many characters were considered before Green Lantern like Wonder Woman and Shazam, until WB got cold feet and canceled them. Hence, making this the first attempt that Warner Bros. felt confident enough to take a gamble on. Let's hope it pays off.
Wonder Woman (Updated 2)
Wonder Woman/Diana Prince/Diana Themyscira: Adrianne Palicki
Veronica Cale: Elizabeth Hurley
Etta: Tracie Thoms
Unnamed Police Liaison: Pedro Pascal
Unnamed CEO of Diana Themyscira's company: Cary Elwes
Synopsis: As of right now, there's nothing that's been confirmed or denied about what the story will be about. Whether or not D.C. will go with the original origin story of Wonder Woman, or go for one of it's more modern versions is still up in the air. Unlike Batman or Superman's origin where they've remained relatively unchanged since their creation, Wonder Woman has actually gone through various origin story rewrites over the years.
Originally, Joss Whedon was hired by Warner Bros. to direct and write the project a few years back. According to various reports, he wanted to do a contemporary origin of Wonder Woman where he uses the original story of how Air Force Pilot, Steven Trevor, accidentally lands on the Amazonian Island, and meets Wonder Woman. The two fall in love with each other, and Wonder Woman leaves her home to be with him. It's from there that Wonder Woman fights various evil doers in the name of justice. However, in more modern rewrites of her origin, the synopsis for her character is as follows:
The Amazonian princess-warrior Diana left her lush tropical island to dwell in our urban cityscapes of glass and steel. Tutored in the ways of the Greek warriors, and outfitted with incredible gifts the Goddess bestowed upon her people, she becomes Paradise Island's emissary to the world of man.
However, due to scheduling conflicts and issues Warner Bros. had with Whedon's idea, that they ultimately ended up scraping the project completely. Now with Warner Bros. desire to catch up Marvel in the superhero movie department, their newly formed studio D.C. Entertainment promises that a new Wonder Woman is currently in the works as we speak.
Cons: As much as I would personally love to see this movie happen, there's a few obstacles standing in it's path. For one, is Warner Bros. actually going to take a chance on it like they should have a few years ago? After all, they did hire Joss Whedon then got cold feet, and fired him. Therefore, it's really anybody's guess if Warner Bros. will deliver on their word. As much some of you might be offended by what I'm about to say, I need to say it because I try to be as unbiased as humanly possible when I write this stuff. Thus, I apologize to anyone who reads this and gets offended by what I'm about to say, as that truly is not my intention.
Chances are Warner Bros. may not even make Wonder Woman as it could easily be in development proverbial hell so to speak, or they may end up canceling the project completely if they can't find a story and approach to the character they like. Therefore, it's a reasonable possibility that Wonder Woman could get canceled before production even begins.
If you take a look at all the big budget super hero films that starred female leads like "Elektra", "Catwoman", and "Supergirl", then you'll notice they all had something in common. No, it's not the fact they were all super hot, but it was more due to the fact that they bombed. Badly, I might add. Granted, I think the reasons had to do with bad directing and poor screen writing, to be honest.
However, most Hollywood execs aren't going to look at it like that. No, they're just going to generalize the situation and say: "Hey, all the super hero films starring girls bombed, so why take a chance on Wonder Woman bombing like Catwoman or Supergirl did?" Sure, you can argue saying that there's been a lot of bombs starring male super heroes, but there have also been ones that are proven success stories like Batman and Spider-Man for instance. Therefore, you really don't have much of a case to stand on to convince most execs to take a chance on Wonder Woman. Personally, I think if they had wanted a film based on her, then they would've done one by now. However, since they haven't, this only proves my point further.
The only way a Wonder Woman movie will ever happen is if someone can come up with a decent script that won't require too much money to develop (i.e. Kick-Ass or District 9), so execs will be more open to chance it. If not, then you might be waiting a long time before Wonder Woman ever appears onto multiplexes. Who knows, I heard Fathom is being turned in a film, as it's based off a comic book starring a sexy girl named Aspen. Who's to say that if that film proves to break the mold, then Wonder Woman might be possible. However, it stars over rated actress Megan Fox, so that's a tall order to hope for.
Again, I mean no serious offense to anyone by this, but I don't see how Wonder Woman's costume would translate well on the big screen. At the risk of sounding like some sexist jerk here, if I saw a girl wearing a bustier top that showed off that much of her breasts and star spangled panties, I would automatically assume the girl is either some sort of slut, stripper or a prostitute. I'm deeply sorry if that offends anyone reading this, as I'm just trying to be honest here. I know I'm not the only person in the world that thinks that either, as I actually met both women and men that agreed with me on that point as well. Unfortunately, you really can't change it in a movie, without p***ing off a lot fans of the comic book. Then again, one could say that Superman's costume looks just as equally stupid as it looks like he's wearing his underwear on the outside, as one person told me once. Yet, they made that work in a movie. Plus, if Marvel can somehow to figure out a way to make Captain America's stupid looking costume work in a movie, then it does give me hope that maybe Warner Bros. can do the same with Wonder Woman.
Pros: Personally, I always thought Wonder Woman had the potential to be a great movie. In fact, I think in a genre that's been dominated by male characters, the super hero genre needs a good strong heroine lead movie. And seeing as how Wonder Woman has always been thought to represent women empowerment and equality, what better hero than her to finally break into this exclusive boys club genre? After all, she's every bit of a big name as Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man. The only problem is nobody has given her the respect she rightfully deserves. Those other characters got treated to various movies, video games and several cartoons based on them. What does Wonder Woman have? A few short lived TV movies and a TV show back in the 70's. However, in this modern age, where's her movie? Where's her video game? Why don't they ever give her a cartoon show based on her heroics?
If there's one superhero that can play the disrespect card, it's Wonder Woman. As she's definitely not getting the respect she deserves right now in the media. Unlike most D.C. women like Batgirl, Supergirl, and Hawk Girl (to name a few), she's not a generic rip off of any male counterpart. Nor does she need any sort of team to be famous (i.e. Storm, Jean Grey, Invisible Woman to name a few), as she's already famous. Sure, she's part of the Justice League, but so is Batman and Superman. And she's every bit of a household name as they are. Therefore, as long as they get a director and writer that understands Wonder Woman's full potential, then I'm sure she'll finally get the respect she deserves.
Final Thoughts: Personally, I was bit disappointed to hear that Joss Whedon wouldn't be handling the Wonder Woman movie, since he did such a great job on his TV show, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", where he showcases a sexy yet strongly independent girl. Something that Wonder Woman should be on the big screen. Naturally, I thought if anyone out there can make Wonder Woman a hit, it's this guy. However, I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens. Oh by the way, please be sure to check out this website, by clicking here. As the author brings up many valid points about the serious disrespect of women in comic books, that I think are definitely worth noting. Let's hope that whoever directs and writes this film does a great job at bringing justice to Wonder Woman.
UPDATE: In recent news, it seems that Warner Bros. has officially put the "Wonder Woman" movie on hold for now. Due to poor sales of the comic book itself, Warner Bros. and DC Entertainment both feel that "Wonder Woman" might be presented best on a live action TV show format rather than an actual big budget movie for now. WB did say that they haven't ruled out the possibility of a WW movie down the road, using the "Superman Returns" method where she's gone for a few years then comes back. Just for now, WB seems to be more content with bringing WW back to TV again instead.
The show is set to be produced and written by David E. Kelley. Some of you may be familiar with his previous work on such highly acclaimed TV shows like "Ally McBeal", "Chicago Hope", and "Boston Legal." Of course, he also wrote screenplays for such films as "Lake Placid" and "Mystery, Alaska." It's unknown if Wonder Woman's show will be anywhere similar to CW's current show "Smallville" or not, nor is it certain if the name "Wonder Woman" will be even used as the title for the show itself. What is certain about this show is that it's expected to make it's debut after "Smallville" wraps up it's final tenth season, and presumably take it's place in it's current time slot on CW. Will the show work? Is there a girl out there that can fill the role as much as Linda Carter did? Who knows? All I know is that it should be interesting to see how this shakes out.
The Flash (Update 1)
Synopsis: Like Wonder Woman, very little if any news is released on this film, at this time. Other than the fact, that it's set to be released in 2013. Another thing that "The Flash" has in common with "Wonder Woman" is that it too has been going through development hell for the past few years. Originally set to be directed and written by David Goyer, the man who helped write screenplays for the "Blade" trilogy and current "Batman" franchise, starring Christian Bale. With rumors going from how the film would be allegedly dark, then light, then dark again. Gee, it seems like "The Flash" has gone through a bit of an identity crisis here. Eventually, to just dismissing Goyer's vision of "The Flash" entirely, and parting ways.
Like Green Lantern, there's been more than one Flash, during his history. Although the most popular and current version is the modern, Wally West, where he starts off as a mere sidekick to the second Flash, and eventually goes on to take his place. Yes, there's been three different men bearing the name, Flash, throughout D.C.'s history. Which one they'll decide to go with is entirely up to D.C. Entertainment. For more information on Flash's history, please click here.
The current movie's script is being written by Dan Mazeau and Marc Guggenheim from a story treatment by Geoff Johns.
UPDATE: WB's screen writer, Marc Guggenheim, has just confirmed DC Entertainment and WB's decision to go with the Silver Age comic version, Barry Allen, to be the Flash story line they'll use for the upcoming movie. For those that are unfamiliar with the Barry Allen's storyline, he was a police scientist, whom gains superhuman speed after a horrific lab accident. Of course, there is an update to this story according to sources, as he'll be a police officer tied into the forsenics and CSI. As Guggenheim says, it'll be a very dark movie along the lines of "Silence of the Lambs" and "Seven", while adding in a touch of film noir to it as well. He went on to say that unlike other superheroes, the Flash has a bit of athletic quality to him that most heroes lack, so you can expect this film to also be a cross of a sports film mixed in with a film noir CSI crime drama.
Pros: Well now that we know which version of the Flash they're planning to use, I think this could possibly work if they manage to get the right director and actor for this movie. My vote would go to Chris Pine if I had my way. Not only does he have the snappy smart a** personality of the character and appearance, he's also shown he can be a highly intelligent one at that. Just look at his performance in 2009's version of "Star Trek", for further proof of this. Although I'm not really sure if the Flash could be deemed a dark superhero per say, I do like the idea of mixing in a film noir CSI theme with a sports movie one, as it sounds highly unique and original.
Cons: Although I like the new premise of this movie, I don't know if the Flash has a villain that can help pull it off outside of Zoom, who has all the same powers he has. I mean lets face it, all of the Flash's enemies aren't exactly the best out there, as most of them are either rip offs of other popular DC villains, or they might come off as rejects of a bad b-movie. However, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Final Thoughts: It'll be interesting to see how this film turns out, as I'm a bit curious to see how they'll pull this off.
Synopsis: In an effort to get the ball rolling on featuring some of it's main stream to lesser known characters out there on both the big and small screen, it seems WB is considering giving "Teen Titans" member, "Raven", her own live action TV series on CW. The show is still in it's early planning stages with no official word on who will direct, write, produce or even star in this show yet, but WB plans on releasing the show sometime after "Smallville" goes off the air. For those that are unfamiliar with the character, her origin is as follows:
A half-human, half-demon, Raven came to the mortal world at age 16 and took the name Rachel Roth, becoming a member of the Teen Titans. Clad in a purple hood, Raven has the ability to mentally project and teleport her soul away from her body as well as make use of empathic powers to read other beings minds.
Whether or not we'll see any of the other members of the "Teen Titans" in this live action TV series is still up in the air.
Pros: Seeing as how they managed to make "Smallville" work incorporating the drama of being a superhero and a teenager, then I don't see how a show based on "Raven" could possibly go wrong. Heck, they even managed to incorporate the "Justice Society" (later renamed Justice League), in "Smallville." Therefore, it's not unlikely they would be able to do the same with "Raven", in regards to seeing some of her "Teen Titan" teammates on the show too.
Plus, another thing she has going for her is that "Raven" has always been somewhat of an outcast, even among her own "Teen Titan" friends. As she's been cursed since birth to hurt and help her father destroy our world, yet she desperately wants to do good and to be accepted. Suffering from severe father issues that labels her to be nothing more than a pawn to her father's plans, but she wants to create her own life and destiny. Tell me...how many teenagers couldn't relate to that? The idea of a outcast teen who only wants to be accepted, and embrace her own destiny is a concept that I believe any teenager out there can understand. If that's not enough, she even has the whole goth theme going for her, so you know a lot of emo (slang term for emotionally distant people) and goths out there could relate to her character quite well.
Cons: Seeing as how there's a possibility this show might have cameos of other "Teen Titan" members, then the only cameo that concerns me is the appearance of Robin. For those that aren't familiar with the "Teen Titans", the original Robin was one of it's founding members and leaders of the team. If he does make a appearance on her show, how would that fit in with Christopher Nolan's Batman continuity on the big screen? After all, isn't Robin part of Batman's mythology too? Then again, Nolan did say that his Batman films have a stand alone continuity that doesn't incorporate other DC characters, so that may not be a problem at all. Besides, it's not like Robin has been in any of the recent Batman films anyway. Plus, WB and DC Entertainment did mention that they might follow Marvel Studios philosophy, in regards to TV and movies, where both will have their own separate continuities. Meaning that TV show continuity will have no effect on anything that happens to their characters on the big screen, and vice versa.
Final Thoughts: For what it's worth, I think this sounds like an interesting show. In fact, outside of Marvel Studios' "Cloak and Dagger" series, "Raven" might be a surprise hit if it's handled correctly.
Synopsis: Aquaman is king of lost underwater city of Atlantis. Despite being the youngest of his other sibling, Aquaman was selected to rule the city. While other heroes of D.C. safeguard the world above the oceans, Aquaman fiercely protects the oceans themselves. Having the unique powers of not only super human strength, the ability to generate tidal waves and manipulate the sea around him; he's also able to telepathically communicate with any of the seas' vast creatures.
Ben Grant, a first time scribe, will be writing the screen play with a release date around 2013.
Pros: Well seeing as how Marvel's originally planned Namor is in development hell, and doesn't look like it'll be released anytime in the near future. Then I guess one could say that gives Aquaman a considerable advantage of being the first superhero to appear on the big screen that protects the world's oceans. Something that would've been a huge disadvantage if Namor would have been able to be released first. As he's a much more interesting of a character than Aquaman, and he has that outcast thing about him, since he's a mutant among his own people yet he leads them.
Cons: There's really only so many stories you could go with for Aquaman that it's not even funny. Although most fans can argue saying that Aquaman got a bad rep from how he was portrayed in the classic "Super Friends" show. I'll give you that. However, that still doesn't diminish the fact of Aquaman's limited fan base and appeal. At least Namor, would've had that outcast thing going for him since he's a mutant.
Final Thoughts: As of right now, there's rumors that Namor might be introduced in the planned "Avengers" film coming up in 2012 (a whole year before Aquaman). As I just recently learned that Universal Studios lost their rights to Namor aka The Submariner completely, so the rights have been converted back to Marvel Studios. I apologize for failing to mention that in my Marvel edition of "Super Heroes Assemble", but I just learned of this recently after I had publish it. As many comic book buffs might know, Namor was responsible for helping discover Captain America's frozen body in the comic books. If you look closely at the chalk board in the background of "Iron Man 2" where Nick Fury and Tony Stark are going over Black Widow's evaluation of him, you'll notice a map pin pointing key spots. One of those alleged spots happen to be in the middle of the ocean. Perhaps setting up for a possible Namor appearance in "The Avengers?" Or just one hell of a coincidence? I'll let you be the judge. After all, it's just a rumor.
However, if that rumor happens to be true, then "Aquaman" can pretty much kiss any chance his movie had of becoming a hit goodbye. As the only thing I could think of that he had going for him was that he'd come off as highly original among movie critics and audiences being the first superhero that comes from the ocean in a superhero movie. BUT, if Namor beats him to it in "The Avengers", then.......maybe D.C. should consider making a movie about one of their other characters instead.
Black Adam: Dwayne 'the Rock' Johnson (rumored)
Synopsis: When young preteen Billy Batson says the magic word, "SHAZAM", he transforms into the Earth's mightiest mortal. Turning him into a man that's as old and as powerful as Superman. Although he's been around about the same amount of time as Superman, he's received far less exposure over the years. In fact, most people often assume that Shazam is the characters name, when in reality it's Captain Marvel. Of course, that can't be helped as this stems from the idea that Marvel Comics owns the name "Marvel", so it forces D.C. to market the character differently under the name Shazam.
The best way to describe the appeal of the "Shazam" comics is that it's essentially Tom Hank's film, "Big", meets "Superman." The word Shazam itself is actually an acronym in the comics that represent famous Greek gods that provide Captain Marvel his powers. The listing of what each letter means is as follows:
S- for the wisdom of Solomon
H-for the strength of Hercules
A-for the stamina of Atlas
Z-for the power of Zeus
A-for the courage of Achilles
M-for the speed of Mercury
Of course, Captain Marvel's nemesis, Black Adam, also utters the same word to transform, but his acronym for Shazam represents Egyptian gods rather than Greek ones.
Originally set to come out next year in place of Ryan Reynold's "Green Lantern", it looks like D.C. Entertainment has put the project on hold for now. However, that still doesn't diminish the rumors of this film's possible production anytime soon.
Pros: I don't know if Peter Segal, from "Get Smart" fame, is still directing this or not. However, if he is, then the film might do okay. As I was a bit of a fan of the recent "Get Smart" movie. Therefore, if he's still involved, then I'd say this film has a fairly good chance at becoming a surprise hit. Granted, I know some of you might be asking if I lost my mind or something saying that. However, hear me out on this. Before D.C. bought out the copyrights to "Shazam!" from Fawcett Comics, it literally used to beat Superman's comic book sales on a consistent basis. Hence, why Warner Bros. tried to sue them for copyright infringement, as they felt the character held too many similarities to Superman. Sure, you could say they justified in their claim but at the same time, you can't deny it was probably a move that D.C. needed to make to eliminate Superman's competition. Plus, Shazam might have a broader appeal than many people might think.
One being that the character is essentially a kid. A kid that can turn into a superhero just by saying one word. How many kids do you know that have over active imaginations that day dream about being a superhero, or watch them in movies regularly? Yet, this kid gets to live the dream anytime he wants. Therefore, it could easily be accessible to children to buy into.
Plus, if rumors were true about them introducing Black Adam as the main adversary in the first movie, then that's an even bigger bonus for the film. For you see in later illustrations of Black Adam over the years, he's actually been portrayed as being possibly stronger than Superman and Captain Marvel, since he's one of the few to beat up the entire Justice League team by himself. A rare feat not even Captain Marvel nor Superman ever did. Therefore, a "Shazam!" movie may have something the last "Superman" movie didn't have, and that's a villain that can possibly kill and defeat him, that Captain Marvel has to fight. Something that the poorly received "Superman Returns" didn't have. Sure, it had a few good interesting ideas like the kid being Superman's illegitimate son, but what I hated about it was the villains. As much history Superman has and with today's modern CGI, you'd think that Warner Bros. would've picked another villain outside of Lex Luthor for once to take on the "Man of Steel." However, it didn't change with "Superman Returns" as they even had the audacity to have Lex Luthor come up with a similar scheme he pulled in the first movie, "Superman: The Movie" starring Christopher Reeves. Therefore, if Black Adam is the villain in "Shazam!", then we might actually see a cool fight scene that all the "Superman" movies failed to generate thus far.
Cons: Is "Shazam!" really that popular? Seriously, is he? In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised that most people don't even know who he is. Thus, I can imagine most people are going to assume he's somewhat of a rip off of Superman. Which essentially he is in some ways, but he's also a kid too. Therefore, it's tough to say how well critics will take this interpretation along with many average movie goers, who don't read or know a lot about comics. Which essentially could be "Shazam!" problem right from the get go. Many people may not give the movie a chance, as "Shazam!" does reflect a lot of similarities to "Superman" that most people will probably boycott as a rip off. Even most critics may not even give this film a fair shake.
Final Thoughts: I think in terms of story wise, this film has a lot of untapped potential. After all, it's no secret that some kids often have over active imaginations to dream of being things like superheroes and such. I always thought "Shazam!" could be somewhat of an exploration of that concept. A concept of what if a ordinary boy could become a Superman type figure, at a moment's notice. Wouldn't that be something? After all, "Shazam!" is essentially the film "Big" meets "Superman." Plus, if Peter Segal is still inked to direct this movie, then I'm sure this movie might surprise some people at the box office.
Unfortunately, due to the overall originality content and similarities to D.C.'s other iconic character, I don't see a lot of critics supporting this. Simply, because not all critics will do research on the character before reviewing it, so I doubt this film will do any better than mixed reviews. Sure, you can always count on critics like Peter Travers, who will do the film a fair assessment by researching the character a bit to go along with the review. However, for every Peter Travers out there, there's going to be two or three other critics who won't even bother. That's where the problem is going to lie with "Shazam!"
Synopsis: As of right now, "Lobo" is currently being put on hold over at Warner Bros. Originally, Guy Ritchie, the famous director of the last "Sherlock Holmes" movie, was set to direct. Unfortunately due to the raging success of "Sherlock Holmes", Guy and WB have decided to move forward with a follow up sequel to the movie over the planned "Lobo" movie. This doesn't necessarily mean he won't direct the film, but it does mean it won't be coming out in the near future for now. However, Guy is still attached, and although the plot has yet to be confirmed here. The last planned synopsis by Warner Bros. is as follows:
A bunch of outlaw aliens invade Earth to hide out from the intergalactic law. Lobo, is essentially a cold blooded bounty hunter for hire that goes to Earth to hunt them down, while being aided by a native teenage girl sidekick.
Originally, Lobo was created a parody of the "bad boy" type super heroes (i.e. Wolverine and Batman). Since then, he's often been known throughout the D.C. Universe for his violent actions, womanizing, and his infamous battles with Superman.
Pros: Although there was quite an uproar by a lot of comic fans about Guy Ritchie directing "Lobo", as many demanded for someone like Rob Zombie instead. Which is understandable. Heck, Rob even looks like Lobo, so he could probably cast himself as the lead to save the company money. However, the reality is he's not directing nor starring in this movie at this time. What we do have here is Guy Ritchie. A man that's proven he knows how to mix in interesting plots that draw the viewer in, without sparing any of the comedic and action elements in it as well. Therefore, I have no doubt he could do a great "Lobo" movie. Plus, "Lobo" has a very broad appeal about him. As I can see his character appealing to not only all the "bad boy" types in the world, but he can also appeal to bikers and heavy metal fans as well.
Cons: Unfortunately, as much promise as this film probably has, Warner Bros. is highly skeptical about releasing "R" rated movies. Not that I blame them, as most "R" rated movies don't generate anywhere near the same amount of money that a lower rated film would. Add in the fact, that most movie studios, like any other business during the recession, want to tighten their belts and not make too many risky moves that could cost them a lot of revenue. After all, why should a WB executive listen to any of us and make "Lobo" an "R" rated film, when it's statistically proven "PG-13" or lower generate more money? Or why should we even care? Well, it may not seem like much to the average person, but it's a big deal if you follow the character.
One, Lobo is by far D.C. Comics' darkest character. Even more than Batman, as he at least has morals.........and D.C. can't make him too dark otherwise they can't promote him to kids through cartoons and toys. However, Lobo doesn't have to worry about catering to your kids, as he's never been marketed to kiddies to begin with. Secondly, according to the graphic nature of the character, he's more prone to make this alleged teenage sidekick his b**** and p*** her out like a s***, then kill her once he's done with her. I severely apologize to anyone I just offended saying that, as I have the highest respect for women. However, I'm merely just describing the character's true graphic nature, as to why a "PG-13" rating simply wouldn't do. As he would definitely need an "R" rated movie to show off his full personality on the big screen. Any rating lower would simply demean and take away who the character is.
Final Thoughts: I hope Warner Bros. studios decides to turn this film into an "R" rated movie if does get made, as that's the only way I can see Lobo's true nature working on the big screen. However, if rumors are true that WB doesn't want to release too many "R" rated films, then "Lobo" could end up disappointing a lot of his fans before you know it. Then again, if the film could be made for a reasonable budget like "Kick-Ass" was, then there's definitely a possibility that WB might make this film with an "R" rating. As "Kick-Ass" only cost about fifty million to make so if "Lobo" can fall under that same price tag, it might allow for the director and writers enough freedom to explore Lobo's entire graphic nature that the fans might be pleased with.
Synopsis: So far very little if anything is denied or confirmed on this project. As like most of D.C. Comics planned movies are stuck in proverbial development hell, and "Swamp Thing" is certainly no exception to the rule. Originally thought to be abandoned completely like Warner Bros. previous attempt at adapting a new version "The Sandman" to the big screen, it turns out that "Swamp Thing" might actually have some hope yet.
As it was recently announced last year, Joel Silver will produce the the remake of the movie while the screenplay will be written by Akiva Goldsman. In April 2010, Vincenzo Natali confirmed to direct the 3-D remake of the film.
Swamp Thing is a 1982 horror film written and directed by Wes Craven. It starred Louis Jourdan, Adrienne Barbeau and Ray Wise as the scientist who was transformed into a monster (Swamp Thing, played by Dick Durock) by a laboratory accident. The film was based on the DC Comics (later Vertigo Comics) character of the same name by Len Wein and Bernie Wrightson.
Pros: No doubt that if Warner Bros. plans this film correctly, it could end up being one of their more popular franchises based on one of their comic book properties. Swamp Thing not only has a broad appeal, as it could be used to send a somewhat of a green message (we all know how Hollywood loves to push that), like the old cartoon shows used to. Plus, if that wasn't enough, it also has a character that loses everything dear to him when he gets transformed into this monstrosity. Thus, making him an outcast and someone that loses everything to an accident. Something that could be very believable and palatable for audiences to connect and feel with the creature himself.
Cons: Last time I checked before news of Joel Silver was producing this film, it was also under a lot of copyright issues that might keep it from seeing the big screen anytime soon. According to director, Vincenzo Natali, the production of "Swamp Thing" is currently at a stand still at the moment. As it seems, there's a lot of copyright issues involving the character that Warner Bros. still has to clear up before any movie based on the creature is even made. Therefore, there's a strong possibility this film may not even get made at all.
Final Thoughts: I doubt seriously due to this copyright issue business, we'll see a "Swamp Thing" movie anytime soon. Although it's always possible Warner Bros. could somehow get the case ruled over in their favor, but that's a tall order to hope for. As D.C. Entertainment and WB still have the impending "Superman" copyright issues to worry about, which I'll gladly get more into in a minute. Therefore, it might be a very long time before "Swamp Thing" ever comes to the big screen. However, when it does though, I know whoever has the chance to direct and write it will definitely have a great character to work with.
Synopsis: Not to be confused with the "Priest" movie set to come out next year, this film is based off a controversial Vertigo Comic book.
Preacher tells the story of Jesse Custer, a down-and-out preacher in the small Texas town of Annville. Custer was accidentally possessed by the supernatural creature named Genesis in an incident which killed his entire congregation and flattened his church.
Genesis, the product of the unauthorized, unnatural coupling of an angel and a demon, is an infant with no sense of individual will. However, as it is composed of both pure goodness and pure evil, it might have enough power to rival that of God Himself. In other words, Jesse Custer, bonded to Genesis, may have become the most powerful being in the whole of living existence.
Custer, driven by a strong sense of right and wrong, goes on a journey across the United States attempting to (literally) find God, who abandoned Heaven the moment Genesis was born. He also begins to discover the truth about his new powers, which allow him to command the obedience of those who hear his words. He is joined by his old girlfriend Tulip O'Hare, as well as a hard-drinking Irish vampire named Cassidy.
During the course of their journeys, the three encounter enemies and obstacles both sacred and profane, including: the Saint of Killers, an invincible, quick-drawing, perfect-aiming, come-lately Angel of Death answering only to "He who sits on the throne"; a serial-killer called the 'Reaver-Cleaver'; The Grail, a secret organization controlling the governments of the world and protecting the bloodline of Jesus; Herr Starr, ostensible Allfather of the Grail, a megalomaniac with a penchant for prostitutes, who wishes to use Custer for his own ends; several fallen angels; and Jesse's own redneck 'family' — particularly his nasty Cajun grandmother, her mighty bodyguard Jody, and the 'animal-loving' T.C.
Pros: Although I can't say I ever read an issue of "Preacher" but from what I have read about him, his stories sound highly unique and original. The stories not only invoke a dark magic themed mythology with religion, it also sounds like it incorporates a spaghetti western atmosphere. At any rate, I just hope its a helluva a lot better than "Jonah Hex", as that film was supposed to invoke supernatural themes with a western type atmosphere, and failed miserably. Let's hope the same doesn't happen with "Preacher."
Cons: Unfortunately, I think one of the many things that could cause this film not to be made is it's controversial content. Like I mention about "Spawn" in part 3 of this series, the reality is that I doubt seriously the Catholic Church would allow this movie to be openly accepted. No offense to religion, but this comic book series does put a Christian god figure in a very bad light, as the main antagonist. Thus, showing that god abandoned his creations, and left the world defending for itself. As controversial as this sounds, I can only imagine how much the Churches will petition to have this banned before it even gets to theaters. I mean if a film like "Passion of the Christ" can cause controversy, then you better believe "Preacher" will if it sees the light of day.
Final Thoughts: Assuming D.C. Entertainment and Warner Bros. goes through with this, then I think it might be fighting an uphill battle. Sure, I think it will draw in a lot of fans, as the controversy surrounding this film, will be enough to entice audiences. Plus, I think film critics will appreciate the uniqueness of it's story value. However, it'll get a lot of bad press, and WB better have their lawyers ready...just in case they have to fight to get this film into theaters.
The Dark Knight Rises (Updated 4)
Batman/Bruce Wayne: Christian Bale
Lucius Fox: Morgan Freeman
Alfred: Michael Caine
Commissioner Gordon: Gary Oldman
Bane: Tom Hardy
Selina Kyle: Anne Hathaway
Alberto Falcone: Joseph Gordon-Levitt (rumored)
Synopsis: As of right now, there's nothing that's been confirmed or denied about what the next film will be about, as David Goyer and Jonathan Nolan continue penning the script. I know Christopher Nolan has been very adamant about saying he doesn't want to use any Batman villains, that possess any kind of powers like Mr. Freeze, Manbat, and such. As Nolan has been adamant about keeping Batman within the real world context. Therefore, for all you fans out there that are clamoring for any of Batman's super powered villains like Clayface, Mr. Freeze and such, then please erase that from your minds right now. As I can imagine if Nolan comes back to direct this, he's not going to put in a villain that has any type of superpowers.
Having said that though, there have been a ton of rumors about what the next movie will be about. As some rumors suggest a possible appearance of the Riddler and Catwoman. While others suggest that Two-Face, could come back to wreak vengeance upon Gotham City. So far Christopher Nolan has yet to confirm any of these rumors or deny them as well. Although he did say that he was disappointed Heath Ledger died because he wanted to originally use the Joker as a recurring villain. Yes, you heard me right. Originally, Heath Ledger's Joker was supposed to be used as a recurring villain in the third movie where he would allegedly be teamed up with Harley Quinn. Sadly, seeing as how Heath Ledger is now dead and how Nolan refuses to recast the part, it seems that idea might not be feasible now. Although there are rumors suggesting that Nolan might have gotten enough movie shots during "The Dark Knight" film, that would allow for him to create possibly another sequel with the Joker again. However, that is just a rumor, as Nolan is being very secretive about his future plans with the caped crusader. Therefore, we'll have to wait and see.
Pros: Hmmm...let me think here. We have virtually the entire main cast penned to come back (with the exception of Rachel Dawes), and unless Nolan finds another gig and/or WB pressures him too much, then I'm sure the next Batman film will be great. Although most third movies tend to stink in trilogies, Nolan wouldn't allow that to happen. As he's always been focused on the story content of any film he directs. Even before he started to direct the "Batman" franchise, Nolan's main priority was always telling a great story, as it shows in every film he's ever directed. Therefore, he doesn't need Warner Bros., as much as they need him to direct this movie. That's why it would be pretty dumb for Warner Bros. not to allow the man total creative freedom, after the success of "The Dark Knight." However, from what it sounds like, WB is thinking the exact same way I am. As they're not putting any type of pressure on, him at the moment, to give them an immediate answer whether or not he'll direct another "Batman" movie. In fact, they're allowing him all the time in the world to decide, as he waits for the script to be finished. That reason alone gives me confidence that Nolan will return to finish what he started.
However, I'm sure as long as the story is pretty good, then Nolan will come back to direct this. Besides, with Bale and Nolan coming back for another sequel possibly, then it looks like "Batman" will continue being left in good hands.
Cons: A lot of things could go wrong here, but I'll try to be brief about it. One, the last film generated over a billion dollars and was one of the top grossing movies of all time. Although some argue it was mostly due to the hype surrounding Heath Ledger's death, there's no denying how much money "The Dark Knight" made. Plus, "The Dark Knight" was highly critically acclaimed by a lot of film critics. In fact, there was a huge uproar when the Academy Awards snubbed "The Dark Knight" for "Best Film" that year, simply because of it's genre. Therefore, can a third movie possibly live up to the hype around it? Possibly matching the last film in terms of quality or perhaps be even better? Is it even possible? After all, I thought "The Dark Knight" was a damn good movie. In fact, I'd definitely put it up there among some of the better movies of it's genre. Then again, I used to believe "Batman Begins" was the best "Batman" film ever made, and doubted that Nolan could ever make a better one. Boy was I wrong, when I saw "The Dark Knight." Therefore, he might just surprise me, as I hope he does.
Another thing to consider here is this, what if Nolan doesn't come back to direct this film? After all, this film isn't set to be released until around 2012, and an awful lot of things can happen between now and then. Nolan could change his mind, as he might find a film that suits his interests more. Or he could just decide the story isn't right when he sees the final version of David and Jonathon's script. Like I said, a lot of things can happen between now and then. And if he does choose to walk away from the "Batman" franchise, then who else can direct this? Not saying it's impossible for any other director to take over but with as much hype as this film will surely have around it, I think WB's best bet to meet fans expectations is to do whatever it takes to keep Christopher Nolan happy. As him and Bale are the key to the next film's success.
Final Thoughts: No Christian Bale or Christopher Nolan, equals a very bad Batman movie possibility. As I think Warner Bros. needs both these guys to come back if they want to continue their success with Batman. Otherwise, I'd just end it with "The Dark Knight." Besides, trilogies are so over done these days in movies.
Superman: The Man of Steel (Updated 4)
Superman/Clark Kent: Henry Cavill
Martha Kent: Diane Lane
Jonathan Kent: Kevin Costner
Synopsis: Scheduled for release around 2012, alongside the third untitled Batman movie. Superman is being produced by none other than Christopher Nolan. No, he won't be directing this film, but he has been quoted along with Warner Bros. Executives, as saying he'll take on somewhat of a mentor type role to upcoming director, Zach Snyder, who was recently signed to be the director of this upcoming movie. Like Nolan's future Batman movie, he's not divulging too many details about the story. Other than the fact that like Batman thus far in "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight", Superman will be the only existing superhero within his universe. Therefore, you won't see any cameos from other characters like "Iron Man" has. No, Superman will exist in his contemporary universe just like Nolan's Batman.
Another thing worth noting here is that this will not be an origin story of any kind. As it was recently reported that WB/D.C. Comics lost all copyrights to Superman's origin along with his trademark identity and costume. For more information on that, please click here. Therefore, this new reboot of the character will assume that many of the viewers will already know who Superman is along with his history.
Outside of that information, there's nothing else that's been confirmed or denied about the upcoming Superman movie. Although there are some rumors that Brainiac might be WB's next choice for villain, but that remains to be seen. Other rumors suggest that "Smallville" might be used as a launching pad for the next movie, as the show conveniently finishes up it's last season next year. Right around the same time, the new "Superman" movie will be in production. Does that mean WB will take advantage of "Smallville's" established history to make another "Superman" movie? Not likely. Although if you had asked me this about a year or two ago, I would've said it's definitely a possibility.
However, with Christopher Nolan involved and knowing his personal style of handling movies, I doubt seriously he'll use any references from "Smallville" to launch "Superman." After all, he did say that Superman was going to be the only superhero within the movie universe they establish, so that kind of erases any possibility of "Smallville" being used, as that already had other heroes like Green Arrow and Hawk Man make cameo appearances.
Pros: Although Zach Snyder's films aren't always as great as his film "300", there's no denying that all his movies are visually captivating. Therefore, you combine that along with Christopher Nolan's knack for storytelling, to supervise the project along with the writers of the "Batman" series thus far, and you have yourself what could possibly be one of the biggest films of the year.
Cons:Seeing as how Snyder and Nolan are both working on this film. I can't see how this movie could do bad. Think about it. You have the visual styling of Zach Snyder, who you know can create some intense fight scenes like he did in "Watchmen", and then you have Nolan who can tell a great and deep story like nobodies' business. It's a winning combination that can only miss if the parts are miscast. Other than that, I don't see too many cons.
Although there is one problem I have about this reboot, is that Warner Bros. can't use Superman's entire history (namely his origin), due to copyright issues. Which is fine as most audiences are familiar with his history already, but what about new audiences? Kids who didn't grow up with the Superman movies like I did? Will they still know who Superman is without the need for an origin story? Plus, how can you make a Superman movie without his trademark costume? That's part of who he is. I just hope that WB pays the Siegel and Shuster families royalties to use the trademark costume, at least. They can probably get away without an origin to reboot it, as the 1989 "Batman" and "X-Men" proved you can launch a franchise without it being an origin story. But if they have to do it without the trademark costume, then it might be a tough sell for them to overcome.
Final Thoughts: For the love of god, no more Lex Luthor and his petty land developing schemes. In fact, I want Lex to be as far away from this movie as humanly possible. Write him off dead if you want, but just don't recycle him again in another Superman movie. And if you do choose to recycle him AGAIN, then please have the audacity to portray him right rather than some campy like stooge. Lex Luthor was always untouchable in the comics. A corporate corrupt billionaire that used to have various illegal weapon deals across the world, but Superman could never prove it. Sure, you can argue saying he could always snap his neck easily, but Superman wouldn't harm anyone like that. And seeing as how there was no solid proof to link Lex to his crimes, he was always essentially untouchable by the law. Hence, making him a worthy adversary to Superman. If they choose to use him again, then they need to portray that version of Lex Luthor, and not the land fetish hapless moron that we've been force fed, since Donner's version.
Synopsis: In recent news, Warner Bros. seemingly maybe backing off it's previous stance of not following what their competitor Marvel Studios is doing. Where it was once adamant that it would seem that fans that were biting their nails for a live action "Justice League" movie would be sadly disappointed. Sure, there was a film set to be released in 2008; featuring no name actors like Armie Hammer and Jay Baruschel (at the time they were filming, he wasn't a well known actor). However, that film never came into fruition, as the estimated budget would have been close to around three hundred million dollars. Making it the most costly movie ever assembled during that time. Something that Warner Bros. wasn't going to bank on.
Then there was the rumors for a while that Christopher Nolan would leave the Batman franchise to direct the Justice League movie. Something that I never could figure out to be quite honest, as Nolan did say that his upcoming "Dark Knight Rises" film was set end Batman's story. Not to mention the fact that Nolan did say that unlike comic books, movie series have to have an ending, and not be some story where you keep blowing it up like a balloon. Therefore, I never understood why anyone would believe Nolan would've directed the Justice League movie, as he's not Michael Bay. Unlike Bay, Nolan never changes his mind about anything he says. Sure, he'll keep his mouth shut for a long time, and not confirm or deny any rumors for a while. However, when it comes to outright spreading rumors and lying to the fans to generate interests, that doesn't fit into his style. Sadly, Nolan has been adamant as to saying that his Batman series thus far exists within it's own contemporary universe. Meaning that no other superhero exists in it; except for Batman. I know. Many of you will say that's not so in the comics, but that's just what the man has clearly stated in various interviews.
However, I wouldn't rule out a possible "Justice League" movie yet, as it seems Warner Bros. may have had a change of heart. Even though Nolan has been adamant about keeping Superman and Batman in their own separate universes, there's no guarantee that will stay, as we have to remember Nolan may not produce the next Superman movie (assuming there's a sequel at all to the new Superman reboot), and he's stepping away from Batman after the "Dark Knight Rises." Plus, Geoff Johns and various writers for the "Green Lantern" weren't opposed on the possibility of crossover movies between the Flash and Green Lantern that could lead into a Justice League film. Add in the fact that there's still a chance that "The Avengers" could live up and possibly surpass it's hype; thus making it more likely that Warner Bros. could end up deciding to make a "Justice League" movie to answer Marvel's superhero team up film.
Therefore, we'll have to wait and see.
Pros: Unlike "The Avengers", the members on the "Justice League" squad are certainly bigger and more established names. Therefore, if this much hype around Marvel's planned "Avengers" movie is generating this much buzz, then one can only imagine the unfathomable buzz that a new "Justice League" film would garner.
Cons: As some of you might remember about what I said about the "Avengers" film, Warner Bros. would also have more to lose than they would to gain if the film inevitably bombed. Sure, it's easy to speculate on what will happen if it becomes a proverbial hit, but will fans still support the solo films of these characters if the "Justice League" movie bombs? Seriously, why should Warner Bros. sacrifice a great opportunity to make great solo franchises with "the Flash", "Wonder Woman", "Superman", "Batman" and "Green Lantern"; just to make a "Justice League" movie that could destroy everything? Is the risk worth the gamble? Or is Warner Bros. getting greedy here? Only time will tell on that one.
Final Thoughts: Personally, I'm a bit conflicted about this film possibly being released. On the one hand, I want this movie to be made because I always wanted to see a live action movie of the "Justice League." Seeing a team up like that with some of comic books greatest heroes like Batman, Wonder Woman and Superman alone is enough to make any ex comic fan or current one dream of the possibilities. On the other hand though, I don't see how they could pull it off.
One, it would be far too expensive to produce, as I know a lot of CGI would have to be implemented. Secondly, what about the story and developing characters? Lets face it, not every hero on the Justice League can get top billing, so some of them would have to be reduced to supporting roles. Lets just say for the sake of argument that the "Green Lantern" becomes a huge hit, and Ryan Reynolds ends up becoming a big name actor in Hollywood because of it ala Robert Downey Jr., due to his role in "Iron Man." What then? Are they going to force a big name like Ryan Reynolds to take a backseat to whoever plays Batman on the Justice League? Just because the character is vastly more popular than Reynolds' character? Take in mind, Christian Bale has already stated he would not do a Justice League film, so they would need to recast Batman for this part. Therefore how would that work?
However, this is all speculative at this point, as Warner Bros. has hinted that a lot of this depends on the popularity of the Green Lantern film set to come out later this year. Therefore, if you want a Justice League movie, then you better go out and see the Green Lantern.