Stop you right there. Read my post and then reread yours and understand exactly why what you just said makes no sense.
Just because you dont like my answer doesnt mean it doesnt make any sense. You dont think it makes sense in terms of future film potential for solo films IF JLA ends up flopping, and thats true. Although, if JLA flops, future solo superhero films will fall into doubt anyway, Id think. But I was referring to business sense, and the way that a studios action plan for developing DCs pantheon of characters affects studios making MANY future big budget superhero films. We dont live in a fantasy wishworld where WB will shell out enormous bucks just because we want to see a certain solo film. They want to make money, and they dont want to have to bet the farm to do it. If making a successful JLA movie makes WB feel more secure about making future solo films, then Im all for it. Its much better than than the studio just being afraid to take any risks on future DC Comics films and not making anything.
Let's say this movie flops, which is a huge possibility with a film of it's nature. Then you ruin ALL, that's ALL, those character's potential properties, plus you risk dooming already successes like Batman and Superman.
Not necessarily. We learn (in theory) that people didnt embrace those characters enough or desire seeing them enough to make solo films a success to begin with. So whats the loss, exactly?
A failure like that would, from a business standpoint, tell a studio that would otherwise have sunk 2-300 million dollars a film on these characters into other movies NOT to do so, because they wouldnt be proven earners. Good business decision all around. Not good for fans, but makes a lot of sense from a business standpoint.
My point is,
starting with JLA gets WB to take a calculated risk that until now they have reluctant to do that could, in the long run, really get the ball rolling on future solo projects.
If they make individual features, individual failures won't doom the group as a whole.
Maybe, but just what are the odds of that happening? WB clearly doesnt want to sink hundreds of millions of dollars into films they arent sure will be successful. Say they make THE FLASH and it completely flops. You think theyll be keen on making WONDER WOMAN or GREEN LANTERN with suck risks involved? No. No they wont. JLA will tell them something incredibly important: Do people accept and embrace these characters on film? And: Do people embrace and accept the way we're presenting them (I.E, serious take, lighthearted, etc).
Business wise it's a horrible decision because you put all your eggs in one shakey basket. If Justice League flops, you can kiss Flash, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and potentially Batman and Superman goodbye for a long time.
Maybe, bu these are $150-200 million eggs were talking about here. Eggs that take YEARS to develop, and require a lot of compromise to make happen. And I very much get the impression that WB wont bother with a second or third or fourth egg if the first one breaks. So, if THE FLASH flops, bye-bye GREEN LANTERN, WONDER WOMAN, etc. JLA is MUCH less likely to break than a Flash, Green Lantern, or Wonder Woman film. Its pretty much that simple.
See what Marvel is doing, gradually releasing Avenger solo films...seeing which one's work and THEN planning a potential ensemble. That's wise business planning...
Yes, assuming those films HAPPEN and are any GOOD. In reality, Marvel is HOPING for an Avengers film in the future. They are hoping that their plan all comes together, and banking hugely on that in terms of making THE AVENGERS a reality.
But lets look at what's actually going on. Like WBs struggles to make WONDER WOMAN, THE FLASH, GREEN LANTERN and AQUAMAN take shape over the last few years, Marvel has had trouble making the solo hero films involved in The Avengers happen.
Think about it. IRON MAN has been in production for what, four years now? And Marvel has not gotten even a WHIFF of CAPTAIN AMERICA, THE WASP, ANT-MAN, THOR, etc, all films they claim to be developing. Yes, IRON MAN is happening, and so is THE INCREDIBLE HULK now, but neither of those films are proven earners yet, and can they bank on Robert Downey Jr. returning for THE AVENGERS? Or Ed Norton? And if so, when will THE AVENGERS happen? Between IRON MAN and IRON MAN 2? Between THE INCREDIBLE HULK and THE HULK 3?
You want solo films? Fine. Allow a year for production (best case scenario, this would be rushing it a lot), and assume WB will go with say, something like four a year. Were already in the middle of Batman and Superman franchises. That makes a slate that looks something like this:
2008
THE DARK KNIGHT
2009
WONDER WOMAN
THE FLASH
GREEN LANTERN
AQUAMAN
(All which cost a TON of money)
2010
JLA?
(THE MAN OF STEEL?)
2011
THE SHADOW OF THE BAT
2012
THE MAN OF TOMORROW
Id much rather see JLA in 2009-2010 with the possibility of seeing more future solo films. Although Im all for waiting until Nolans Bat-franchise is over before JLA. However, Im not against re-casting the role of Batman, either.
I love talking about this stuff.
