recasting Bats and Supes: good idea or bad idea?

[Caliber]

Recasting Batman would be the second worst mistake by warner. Recasting Supes could since hes boring in his own films and maybe this time they will get a good actor.

 

[dnno1]

Bale has become a hot commodity nowadays and could command a lot of money for future films. After TDK it might be a time for a change and he could come from a JLA feature film. How about Aaron Stephens for Batman in JLA?

 

[ClarkLuther55]

Some of you guys don't want to realize that there already are 2 Supermen (the version from Smallville and the one currently in the films) and it hasn't seemed to affect the production of either projects.

Bad analogy. Smallville came out 5 years before Superman Returns, and even then there was speculation that Smallville might have been killed off for the movie. Regardless, Smallville is absolute small fries compared to a blockbuster summer movie. It has its devoted fandom, and is one of the more successful shows on WB/CW, but that's being a big fish in a small pond.

We don't go to watch these films for who is portarying the charcater, but for the charater himself.

You don't think Bale has fanboys and fangirls? Or that people won't compare the new Batman to Bale?

 

[dnno1]

Bad analogy. Smallville came out 5 years before Superman Returns, and even then there was speculation that Smallville might have been killed off for the movie. Regardless, Smallville is absolute small fries compared to a blockbuster summer movie. It has its devoted fandom, and is one of the more successful shows on WB/CW, but that's being a big fish in a small pond.

It doesn't matter. Smallville is proof that two different live actors can play the same character on film (be it the small or big screens) at the same time. Smallville has just as difficult a task to hurdle as Superman Returns since it is episodic and it has to do all it can to maintain 4-5 million viewers a week and stay afloat.

You don't think Bale has fanboys and fangirls? Or that people won't compare the new Batman to Bale?

Of course I do, but like I said before, I doubt the result would be any different. If they replaced him with another actor in a rival film like JLA, I doubt that it would destroy the franchise. The character has been played by so many different actors on Film (and commercial TV) as it is right now. It may be the case that popularity may determine the future of the franchise, but the franchise won't fall.

 

[The Guard]

Sorry if I don't have as much faith in the general public as you.

I have very little faith in the intelligence of most people myself. But WB/the creators of superhero films should not have to bend over backward and halt their creative processes because ignorant or unintelligent people might get confused when they refuse to logically think an issue through.

SMALLVILLE is a fine example of concurrent concepts. Because SMALLVILLE was still going on when SUPERMAN RETURNS was made. And yet, there was almost no confusion involved once the movie came out. Frankly, I don't think there's a timing issue, either. Yes, the Batman franchise may still be in development when JLA comes out, but three years later, newcomers to both films are not going to go "Wait a tic, JLA was made in 2009, and the third Batman film was made in 2010...what gives?". They're just going to watch them as different versions, or different stories, involving the same character.

people will think this is a continuation beyond Nolan's films... it will be a nightmare for average viewers to follow.

And it may well feature a story about AFTER Nolan's Batman franchise (or even during). But exactly what will make the movie so hard to follow?

A JLA movie means they’d have to find a way to make all superhero equals.
And that's means doing a lot of demeaning thing toward Superman to make the Batman the flash even Wonder woman look good.

Or they could just, you know, make those characters look good, just like the comics do. There's nothing that says other heroes have to look like Superman's equal.

 

[FaT_tONle]

SMALLVILLE is a fine example of concurrent concepts. Because SMALLVILLE was still going on when SUPERMAN RETURNS was made. And yet, there was almost no confusion involved once the movie came out. Frankly, I don't think there's a timing issue, either. Yes, the Batman franchise may still be in development when JLA comes out, but three years later, newcomers to both films are not going to go "Wait a tic, JLA was made in 2009, and the third Batman film was made in 2010...what gives?". They're just going to watch them as different versions, or different stories, involving the same character

If the GP is that smart... why did some many casual fans insist BB was a prequel to Burton's film? They obviously missed the contradictions and thought it was a movie that would lead into Burton's Batman... ask anyone on the streets who saw BB and they will tell you they first thought it was a prequel... how do you explain something like that?

 

[The Guard]

If the GP is that smart... why did some many casual fans insist BB was a prequel to Burton's film?

Because a lot of people are ignorant and cannot or do not think things through on any realistic level.

They obviously missed the contradictions and thought it was a movie that would lead into Burton's Batman...

Obviously they did miss quite a bit.

ask anyone on the streets who saw BB and they will tell you they first thought it was a prequel... how do you explain something like that?

Ignorance. And I don't mean this in a bad way, but they're clearly ignorant of the situation. They're either unaware of what actually happened in BATMAN in relation to what happened in BATMAN BEGINS and are, for some reason, unable to tell the differences between the two franchises.

And I never said the general public is smart. Listen to me very carefully, ok? A lot of people are stupid or ignorant. I get it. That does not mean that movie studios should bend over backward or stop creating in some pathetic attempt not to confuse stupid and ignorant people. Stupid people are going to be stupid and ignorant, regardless. If they're too dumb to figure out simple concepts, then they're too dumb to figure out simple concepts.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I never said the general public is smart. Listen to me very carefully, ok? A lot of people are stupid or ignorant. I get it. That does not mean that movie studios should bend over backward or stop creating in some pathetic attempt not to confuse stupid and ignorant people. Stupid people are going to be stupid and ignorant, regardless. If they're too dumb to figure out simple concepts, then they're too dumb to figure out simple concepts.

Wow... then a lot of people must be stupid and ignorant... pretty much everyone I talked to must be stupid and ignorant... cause they all thought the same thing... keep in mind Batman was 1989... I think a lot of the younger generation may have forgotten key elements in that plot... but apparently to you those who don't bend over backward to get their hands on Batman hype are stupid and ignorant it seems...

On a side note... Talia AL GHUL might be in the movie as a villain... so will the GP be stupid and ignorant if they associate her character as the daughter of Ra's Al Ghul (the rendition portrayed in BB)? How would they explain that one? Maybe they shouldn't bother because it won't confuse the people who follow every freaking detail in these movies.

 

[moguy]

Because a lot of people are ignorant and cannot or do not think things through on any realistic level.



Obviously they did miss quite a bit.



Ignorance. And I don't mean this in a bad way, but they're clearly ignorant of the situation. They're either unaware of what actually happened in BATMAN in relation to what happened in BATMAN BEGINS and are, for some reason, unable to tell the differences between the two franchises.

And I never said the general public is smart. Listen to me very carefully, ok? A lot of people are stupid or ignorant. I get it. That does not mean that movie studios should bend over backward or stop creating in some pathetic attempt not to confuse stupid and ignorant people. Stupid people are going to be stupid and ignorant, regardless. If they're too dumb to figure out simple concepts, then they're too dumb to figure out simple concepts.

Unfortunately the so called "stupid and ignorant" masses are much more important to WB's bottom line than the miniscule amount of well informed comic book geeks (myself included) that happily consume prequel after reboot after quasi-sequel after alternate reality.

 

[The Guard]

Wow... then a lot of people must be stupid and ignorant... pretty much everyone I talked to must be stupid and ignorant... cause they all thought the same thing...

Yes, a lot of people are. And no, the people you spoke to were most likely just ignorant of the facts, although it's possible they were stupid. I don't know, as I don't know them well enough to say. All I can judge is their actions in relation to the movie's premise.

keep in mind Batman was 1989... I think a lot of the younger generation may have forgotten key elements in that plot... but apparently to you those who don't bend over backward to get their hands on Batman hype are stupid and ignorant it seems...

Those who don't bother to investigate something and just ***** about being confused are ignorant. Those who have something pointed OUT to them and still can't get a simple concept are stupid. Or possibly both.

I'm not using "ignorant" in the same vein as stupid, though. I'm referring to people simply being unaware of the details of previous films, and how they intersect with BATMAN BEGINS. The definition of ignorance includes this: unaware because of a lack of relevant information or knowledge.

If someone is unaware of something (regardless of whether they have forgotten it or not), then they can be said to be ignorant of the circumstances. For instance, not being a follower of STAR TREK, I am ignorant of 98 percent of the mythology.

This is the most common issue I see coming up with BATMAN BEGINS. This is also how I tend to see it resolved.

NON-FAN: But didn't The Joker kill Batman's parents?

FAN: That was one version of the story, like the old James Bond movies. This is a new version of the story. It follows the comic book origins of the character a little more closely (supposedly). It's basically a restart of Batman's story.

NON-FAN
Oh. I get it now. That makes sense. Cool.

Problem solved.

On a side note... Talia AL GHUL might be in the movie as a villain... so will the GP be stupid and ignorant if they associate her character as the daughter of Ra's Al Ghul (the rendition portrayed in BB)? How would they explain that one?

Of course not. It would make perfect sense for them to associate her as Ra's Al Ghul's daughter, since that would be the whole point behind using that particular character in the film (Otherwise they'd just use a different character). How will they explain that one? Easily. A JLA film can explain Talia as Ra's Al Ghul's daughter like this: "I am the daughter of Ra's Al Ghul". You know, in the same way that movies tend to show or explain who their characters are?

Maybe they shouldn't bother because it won't confuse the people who follow every freaking detail in these movies.

There's no need for sarcasm. When did I say nothing needed to be explained if they do indeed tie Talia in JLA to Ra's in BATMAN BEGINS? I imagine they would, seeing as how that's the only logical reason to USE her as a character without her father. To tie her to a previous storyline, in this case BEGINS.

Once again, if someone has trouble figuring out that BEGINS is a prequel, that's fine. But after it's been explained, and after all the obvious points have been pointed out (which doesn't take long at all), and they still don't get that's just a new version of the Batman mythology? That's their problem. It's not WB's or the creative teams' faults that people can't or don't remember KEY details about movies. That's up to the individual. Nine times out of ten, people who can't remember such details don't tend to CARE about things like continuity, because they wouldn't remember it anyway.

Unfortunately the so called "stupid and ignorant" masses are much more important to WB's bottom line than the miniscule amount of well informed comic book geeks (myself included) that happily consume prequel after reboot after quasi-sequel after alternate reality.

You seem to imply that these "masses" care. I don't think they do, to the point where any "restart" or "recasting" is a huge issue.

 

[bunk]

If they write the script in way that little or no prior knowledge of the characters is needed, it shouldn't be terribly difficult. Obviously a Justice League movie won't be referencing Begins or Superman Returns or anything else. The more I think about the better it sounds to recast everyone and start JL in a new continuity. That way you don't risk having too many cooks in the kitchen.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Of course not. It would make perfect sense for them to associate her as Ra's Al Ghul's daughter, since that would be the whole point behind using that particular character in the film (Otherwise they'd just use a different character). How will they explain that one? Easily. A JLA film can explain Talia as Ra's Al Ghul's daughter like this: "I am the daughter of Ra's Al Ghul". You know, in the same way that movies tend to show or explain who their characters are?



There's no need for sarcasm. When did I say nothing needed to be explained if they do indeed tie Talia in JLA to Ra's in BATMAN BEGINS? I imagine they would, seeing as how that's the only logical reason to USE her as a character without her father. To tie her to a previous storyline, in this case BEGINS.

Once again, if someone has trouble figuring out that BEGINS is a prequel, that's fine. But after it's been explained, and after all the obvious points have been pointed out (which doesn't take long at all), and they still don't get that's just a new version of the Batman mythology? That's their problem. It's not WB's or the creative teams' faults that people can't or don't remember KEY details about movies. That's up to the individual. Nine times out of ten, people who can't remember such details don't tend to CARE about things like continuity, because they wouldn't remember it anyway.

Wait wait first you imply there will be a a clear distinction in the JLA universe and the the Nolanverse if they indeed recast. Now you are saying they can tie in Talia with the Ra's connection from Begins? How on Earth can that be done? That means they need the same Batman from that Nolan universe... yes Talia was never implied to exist in Begins... (although Liam did have a wife)... however... if you don't explain Talia's connection to a different version of Ra's Al Ghul (and how ******ed would that be considering everyone knows Liam in that role now) then people will obviously assume that this Talia in JLA is the daughter of Ra's Al Ghul from BB... that's a big problem.. here we are trying to distinguish the two franchises as their own entities... but if a JLA is taking characters that can be associated with Nolan's or Singers version (without altering the character backgrounds or origins established by Singer/Nolan) then we have an even bigger mess... if a JLA is to stand alone by itself... it should be fantastical with white martians, Darkseid, etc... that way you can clearly distinguish the franchises from each other (realism vs non realism)... that's the best thing I can hope for at this point but considering the rumored plot... it is just going to confuse the sh:t out of everyone.

 

[moguy]

I'm not using "ignorant" in the same vein as stupid, though. I'm referring to people simply being unaware of the details of previous films, and how they intersect with BATMAN BEGINS. The definition of ignorance includes this: unaware because of a lack of relevant information or knowledge.

I think everyone is well aware of what the textbook definition of ignorant is. The context and manner in which the word is used can turn it into a derogatory term.

The way you've written all you posts (All caps, linking stupid with ignorant) certainly gives the impression that you are belittling anyone who may have been confused over the whole prequel/reboot issues in BB.

Obviously anyone who posts on this board has a pretty firm understanding of these things, but I don't think it helps much to insult anyone else who doesn't.

 

[FaT_tONle]

DIE ANOTHER DAY
CASINO ROYALE

A new actor as Bond in a new Bond story. That simple.

WtF... Bond was recasted after Brosnan called it quits... Brosnan never came back... and Royale was done THREE years later... how can you use that example? What if Bale does a third in 2011? We are talking about two live action MOVIE characters at the same time... not five or six years later... that has never been done before... and don't give me Connery coming back as Bond because I have commented on that numerous times already.

 

[Maze]

We are talking about two live action MOVIE characters at the same time...that has never been done before...

1992 : Christophe Colomb : the discovery by John Glenn with George Corraface , and 1492: Conquest of Paradise by Riddley scott with Gerard Depardieu .

 

[moguy]

1992 : Christophe Colomb : the discovery by John Glenn with George Corraface , and 1492 : Christophe Colomb by Riddley scott with Gerard Depardieu .

Hey Fat Tonie, doesn't this just make ya wanna pull your hair out.

This thread is hilarious.

 

[FaT_tONle]

1992 : Christophe Colomb : the discovery by John Glenn with George Corraface , and 1492 : Christophe Colomb by Riddley scott with Gerard Depardieu .

Okaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy... I don't know what lengths you went to dig up that one.... maybe it's best kept a secret

 

[FaT_tONle]

Hey Fat Tonie, doesn't this just make ya wanna pull your hair out.

This thread is hilarious.

Hilarious? Well gotto give credit to Matt on that one but it wasn't really funny... but I would assume the two were both done by different studios... but anyways... i'm pulling my hair out with the idea of multiple live action characters in movies at the same time for characters as popular as these two are... I still think it's a huge mistake and I honestly want this film to flop and be the next B & R... sorry JLA fans...

 

[Maze]

Thanks

but i did it from memory ..that said, i was not sure about the exact date of the release of the two movies .and i was not right about the title of the Riddley Scott movie .I have corrected it.

now , i had some time to kill and i dug a little more :

1968 :Tarzan and the Jungle Boy by R. Day with Mike Henry /Tarzan and the Four O'Clock Army by Alex Nicol with Ron Ely.


1967 :Tarzan's Jungle Rebellion by William Witney with Ron Ely/Tarzan and the Great River by R. Day with Mike Henry


1962: La Venganza del Zorro by Joaquín Luis Romero Marchent with Frank Latimore /Zorro alla corte di Spagna by Luigi Capuano with George Ardisson


1959 : Tarzan's greatest adventure by John Guillermin with Gordon Scott/ Tarzan, the Ape Man by Joseph Newman with Denny Miller

1938 : Tarzan and the Green Goddess by E. Kull with Herman Brix /Tarzan's Revenge by D. Ross Lederman with Glenn Morris

1931 : Dracula by Tod Browning with Bela Lugosi / Drácula by George Melford with
Carlos Villarías

ps: it's Maze not Matt

 

[The Guard]

If they write the script in way that little or no prior knowledge of the characters is needed, it shouldn't be terribly difficult. Obviously a Justice League movie won't be referencing Begins or Superman Returns or anything else. The more I think about the better it sounds to recast everyone and start JL in a new continuity. That way you don't risk having too many cooks in the kitchen.

Exactly. It can be done, and it can be done without too much trouble.

Wait wait first you imply there will be a a clear distinction in the JLA universe and the the Nolanverse if they indeed recast.

I don’t believe I have implied anything of the kind. All I've implied is that JLA won't openly contradict BATMAN BEGINS, THE DARK KNIGHT, SUPERMAN RETURNS, etc.

Now you are saying they can tie in Talia with the Ra's connection from Begins? How on Earth can that be done?

Simple. By making her the daughter of the character from BATMAN BEGINS and not contradicting that film. Have her show up as a surprise for Bruce, who did not know Ra's had a daughter, and have her be out for revenge, or continuing her father’s work.

That means they need the same Batman from that Nolan universe... yes Talia was never implied to exist in Begins... (although Liam did have a wife)... however... if you don't explain Talia's connection to a different version of Ra's Al Ghul (and how ******ed would that be considering everyone knows Liam in that role now) then people will obviously assume that this Talia in JLA is the daughter of Ra's Al Ghul from BB... that's a big problem.

Few writers would write a script and not explain how a key element like that carries over. Why is it such a problem for you if nothing in JLA contradicts what happened in BATMAN BEGINS?

here we are trying to distinguish the two franchises as their own entities... but if a JLA is taking characters that can be associated with Nolan's or Singers version (without altering the character backgrounds or origins established by Singer/Nolan) then we have an even bigger mess...

If anything not altering backgrounds and origins makes for a cleaner transition. Why is this a mess? How is there a mess if nothing contradicts anything? It would be a mess if JLA suddenly changed drastically what happened in BATMAN BEGINS, but that’s very unlikely. I doubt JLA will even directly reference any other DC superhero movie much.

if a JLA is to stand alone by itself... it should be fantastical with white martians, Darkseid, etc... that way you can clearly distinguish the franchises from each other (realism vs non realism)... that's the best thing I can hope for at this point but considering the rumored plot... it is just going to confuse the sh:t out of everyone.

I find it hilarious that people don’t think the current Batman could fit into a more fantastical scenario. I can see it working easily. The interaction of Batman with the other leaguers might even be heightened because of the world he inhabits and his outlook on things.

I think everyone is well aware of what the textbook definition of ignorant is. The context and manner in which the word is used can turn it into a derogatory term.

This is true. But I still felt the need to explain that I'm not just insulting people randomly.

The way you've written all you posts (All caps, linking stupid with ignorant) certainly gives the impression that you are belittling anyone who may have been confused over the whole prequel/reboot issues in BB.

I believe that I’ve stated, very clearly, that I have no sympathy for people who have something explained to them, don’t get it, and then let their own ignorance or inability to think logically confuse them. And that furthermore, I do not believe WB should check themselves creatively because of these people.

Obviously anyone who posts on this board has a pretty firm understanding of these things, but I don't think it helps much to insult anyone else who doesn't.

I think it helps justify not catering to people who don’t get it via a lowest common denominator. It’s my personal opinion that if you cannot figure out the difference between BATMAN and BATMAN BEGINS as mythologies once it is explained to you in relatively clear terms…that you are probably either completely apathetic to begin with about the material and film franchise, or dumb as a rock. These aren’t complex concepts. It’s as simple as different versions of Batman’s character existing in our culture over a period of years.

What gets me is that there are actually fans here going “No! WB shouldn’t make JLA for seven years because some people, who would be confused anyway, might be confused!” I find that pretty funny an outlook. I'm starting to think it's mostly an excuse for people to hate on a potential JLA because a lot of people here simply don't have the imagination to see how Chris Nolan's version of Batman could interact with true superheroes.

WtF... Bond was recasted after Brosnan called it quits... Brosnan never came back... and Royale was done THREE years later... how can you use that example?

Pierce Brosnan was replaced. He didn’t “call it quits”. How is my example relevant? Because they are different versions of characters, each existing within a few years of each other on the big screen. Some of you are acting like the third Batman film is going to come out the same week as JLA and there will be mass confusion. And that is just not going to happen. So the only concern people could have would be multiple versions of characters existing in a 3-5 year period of each other. Which has happened before in cinema and television, has it not?

Let's say Bale does do a third Batman film in 2011? What could happen that is so horrible? JLA will likely take place a year or so after THE DARK KNIGHT and a year or so before the third film. Are you telling me people will suddenly have their heads explode with confusion if someone else plays Batman in JLA and then Bale comes back a year later? Maybe, just maybe, people will figure out what’s going on, and accept it as multiple interpretations of the character in different franchises, as people do with concurrent cartoons, films, or any other form of media.

We are talking about two live action MOVIE characters at the same time... not five or six years later... that has never been done before... and don't give me Connery coming back as Bond because I have commented on that numerous times already.

As I’ve said…this hasn’t been done before. That doesn’t mean it can’t work.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I don’t believe I have implied anything of the kind. All I've implied is that JLA won't openly contradict BATMAN BEGINS, THE DARK KNIGHT, SUPERMAN RETURNS, etc.

SO you are positiving that NOTHING in a JLA will contradict BB??? That's a pretty funny assumption... considering they are thinking about writing a YOUNGER version of Batman... you might want to retract from that... if you think Nolan's character would abandon Gotham for a couple of weeks to join a team of heroes in tights then I think you are the one who is stupid and ignorant...

 

[toddly6666]

Why not let Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer or George Clooney star as Batman in the Justice League movie? In the future, there's going to be another actor playing Batman after Christain Bale anyway. What difference does it make that Bale has to be in the Justice League movie just because the DARK KNIGHT movie and JUSTICE LEAGUE movie will be close in time? Over time, no one will care. It will not matter or not if Routhe/Bale is in the JLA movie. If Bale is in the JLA movie, he will certainly make the movie make more money.

 

[Bad Superman]

I'm a bit confused. Will JLA be CGI or live action>???

 

[The Guard]

SO you are positiving that NOTHING in a JLA will contradict BB???

No. I'm saying it's highly unlikely that anything in the JLA film will contradict other films.

That's a pretty funny assumption... considering they are thinking about writing a YOUNGER version of Batman... you might want to retract from that... if you think Nolan's character would abandon Gotham for a couple of weeks to join a team of heroes in tights then I think you are the one who is stupid and ignorant.

Thinking about? But wait, I thought the script had been completed. Even if the JLA version of Batman is played by a younger man (late twenties, early 30's), he could easily fit into some of what BATMAN BEGINS set up. And who says the JLA Batman will be written as "abandoning Gotham"? Maybe the world is at stake?

True, there is a rumor right now that the JLA will be written younger, but that's hardly set in stone. There was also a rumor not long ago that had an older Batman mentoring a younger version of the other heroes. These rumors are just that, rumors. I have a hard time believing that a young Batman would be able to create the Brother Eye satellite, assuming he does create it in the JLA film. But that's neither here or there, because none of us know much of anything definitively.

There's no reason to be rude. But yes, I do think the character Chris Nolan has set up would leave Gotham for a few weeks to save the world if he was absolutely needed. Why wouldn't he?

 

[bunk]

Hilarious? Well gotto give credit to Matt on that one but it wasn't really funny... but I would assume the two were both done by different studios... but anyways... i'm pulling my hair out with the idea of multiple live action characters in movies at the same time for characters as popular as these two are... I still think it's a huge mistake and I honestly want this film to flop and be the next B & R... sorry JLA fans...

Well, this is one for the record books. Certainly the earliest display of antagonism against a film nobody knows squat about. This is one fanboy sentiment I will never understand.