And the next Avengers trailer is out!

DC has had a problems for years with the Wonder Woman comic, nevermind trying to get a TV show or movie going. There's no definitive comic book incarnation of the character to build a movie off of. (See also: Rider, Ghost)

The Green Lantern movie has to be one of the worst examples of executive meddling in recent memory. From years ago when there was a rumor that Jack Black was going to be GL and they were going for a wacky approach, to trying to turn Hal Jordan into a smart*** like movie Tony Stark. 'Course I still think Jordan's a boring character anyway, but I digress.

It'll be interesting to see if WB/DC sticks to the DCnU incarnation of the JLA for the movie, or if they go back to the classic Big 7, give or take a Hawkgirl or Cyborg or whoever.

They ALL float down here. When you're down here with us, you'll float too!

@Starflier

True there are multiple Rider's or at least multiple origins to the spirit of vengeance, but at least with GR you know who his enemies are, primarily which is of course: the devil.

With Wonder Woman....help out my memory here: WHO are her big enemies? WHO is the enemy that would qualify as her arch nemesis? (Besides writers/editors).

With characters like Batman and Superman, you know who their enemies are, and you know which ones are the enemies that could be considered both a personal enemy and a world class enemy: Joker, Rha's Al Ghul, Luthor, Zod, Doomsday.

Hal is supposed to be a space cowboy/adventurer along the lines of Kirk or Malcolm Reynolds. What we got in the GL movie was Ryan Reynolds emulating Hal Jordan from the Emerald Dawn era of GL....not the best choice of both actor and version of Hal.

Also for an example of executive meddling/bad editing that makes a movie worse then it is: Highlander 4: Endgame, there are multiple versions of this movie, some changes made to correct glaring mistakes such as in the theatrical version they stated Sanctuary was on HOLY GROUND, yet Kell kills the immortals in the Sanctuary thus breaking the rule about Holy Ground, so subsequent versions omit that it was indeed HG, and that is just for starters. Movie editors and executives sometimes need to just sit back a bit and also research the history/continuity of their characters a bit more.

I suspect they will use the classic big 7 as they might be more recognizable and more welcome to see for classic fans that are not fond of nuDCU...

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

I could virtually guarantee that any kind of major motion picture version of JLA would be the "classic big 7" even if everyone loved the DCnU thing. The reason for this is as you said: overall character recognition. Sure your typical comicbook geek might be aware of DCnU but any movie marketed for a "general" audience would always fall back to the versions of the characters that are most widely known by every potential demographic who might go to see the movie.

I think the only way we'd see a big screen DCnU movie is if somehow that version of the comicbooks stayed around for another 10 or 20 years and probably only AFTER a "classic big 7" version had been made first.

Probably. I'd still like to see Batman Beyond as a live movie. Also wouldn't mind seeing Bruce Timm do a DCU animated movie that deals with the "Near Apocalypse of '09" as Terry mentioned twice in Batman Beyond (presumably it was Bruce's last fight with Rha's), or some type of JLU movie that shows Bruce is slowly developing the Batman Beyond suit.

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

You're probably right. But, consider the marketing push for the New 52 was huge, and the relaunch has, on the whole, been a financial success. And DC has gone on record stating that the reason they reset the numbering both Action Comics and Detective Comics* was to show how serious they were about the whole thing. It wasn't going to be a partial overhaul/reboot/retcon/whatever of the main DCU books, it was going to be complete.

So yeah, call me crazy, but I'd at least like to think WB/DC are going to stick to their guns about the DCnU versions and use them as the basis for a JLA movie. They have already started with Cyborg in the JLA: Doom movie.

*For those who don't know, Action and Detective had the longest runs of any North American comics at 904 and 881 respectively, before both were reset for the New 52 relaunch. Many fans were disappointed (to put it lightly) that the titles wouldn't hit their 1000th issues as previously believed.

Wouldn't be the first time that a company reset the numbers back to original numbering for a big anniversary issue/event, so I wouldn't be surprised if we get a "1000 reset" for those two series numberings.

Judge Dredd Megazine: 5 volumes, each with its own numbering until Vol 5 when they switched the numbering to what it would be if it was one continuous volume.

Then there is Marvel that just LOVES playing the numbers game........

When it's time for a THOR anniversary issue, I suspect that the Mighty THOR goes back to original numbering and Journey into Mystery gets shelved. When it's time for the next big Hulk Anniversary issue, they will revert to the original numbering. Captain America was relaunched at ish 1 for his movie and the other book was renamed to Captain America and Bucky and will soon be Captain America and "Insert guest star here" for awhile, but when the next big anniversary rolls around, they will reset the numbers again. Fantastic Four becomes "Future Foundation" after the fake death of Johnny Storm, now Johnny is back (duh!) and Future Foundation continues with the kids while Fantastic Four comes back from hiatus at ish 600....and so on and so on.

Kind of makes rushing out to get that new "Issue #1" for potential collector value pointless doesn't it?

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

But is it a recognition issue, or a rights to the name Avengers issue?

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

The BIG 2 are Cheetah and Circe... they might avoid Circe as she would inevitablly draw unfavorable Thor-clone comparisons..

Other big villains would be Veronica Kale and recently.. the new Silver Swan. (Kale is too close to a Luthor clone to use so my bet would be on Cheetah)

Quick, someone check to see if he's wearing shorts!

I'm not aware of it ever being an issue before. The Avengers in the UK are still known as The Avengers with no problem.

However, when I mentioned this to a friend they suggested that they might simply be trying to distance themselves for a distastrous 1990 movie that was based off of the 1960 series. Probably a wise move.

This right here is DC's biggest hurdle they have for putting out any superhero movies, let alone a JLA one.

The movies that Marvel has been putting out from their own studio they have one exec producer who calls the shots (Iron man, Thor, Cap) It was Avi Arad, not sure who it is now. But he has the ability to tell anyone who thinks that it'd be neat if Thor could say things like "The Odinson doth feel pretty oh so pretty!" that they should shut up and get the hell out. even movies done by other studios (X-men, Spider-Man) they do have control to some extent to keep the executive meddling to a minimum. So far it seems that Disney has let them be on the creative side, they seem to understand "They've been making movies that pull in hundreds of millions of dollars... leave them alone and let them work" Something that the WB Exec have yet to figure out.

Of course the arguement comes up of "What about Dark Knight, that was awesome" yeah, but Nolan is a director that has enough clout that when some jr producer comes in saying things to justify his job like "I think the Batman needs more witty one liners to make him more friendly" Nolan has the ability to go "Shut up and get out!" it wouldn't surprise me that something like is in his contracts

on a similar note, it seems DC has their animated side figured out. But in that aspect, for whatever reason they're following the same arrangement that Marvel does with its live movies. They got one person who's in charge who knows what he's doing in Bruce Timm who has creative control over the whole process. I know I've read that supposedly WB has restructed their comic movie arm to put some DC guys in charge, but that's recent and who knows how much power they actually have. And until the WB can figure that out, they're going to continue having random execs poking their nose in and we end up demands like "Superman shouldn't fly. And he needs to fight a polar bear"

For what it's worth, there is a new comic coming out about the 60's Avengers, but it's called Steed and Mrs Peel. My guess is that by now, Marvel/Marvel Studios/Disney have the naming rights for anything that could be called The Avengers locked up six ways from Sunday.

Hell, as long as he fights something I'll be happy. If I wanted to watch pretty boys be all melodramatic I'd watch the CW.

They ALL float down here. When you're down here with us, you'll float too!

@Starflier

Not in Britain, as the British Poster for the Avenger's Movie appears to imply:

Arad's position was a double edged sword for Marvel Studios. For all the random producer crap he was able to veto, he was also responsible for having Venom shoehorned into Spider-Man 3. But then again if Raimi had his way the movie would have focused on freaking Sandman. Marvel also had a lot of their creative types as consultants on Iron Man. I know Quesada, Bendis, and Granov were involved, can't remember the others. I don't think the Marvel Comics guys had as much input in IM2 or Thor, but I'm pretty sure they've kept up the practice of advising the movie people.

WB/DC never did anything like that, but I know they've restructured things a lot in the last 2 years alone. I doubt it'll come into effect until after the in-process Superman movie, but I think it was Geoff Johns who was promoted to oversee the DC characters getting adapted outside the comics.

S'funny, Marvel has the stronger live action movies, but weaker animation. DC on the other hand has the stronger animation but, save for the Nolan trilogy, weaker live action movies. It'd never happen, but it -could- be interesting if both sides came to an agreement and Marvel did DC's live action movies and DC did Marvel's animation.

I could be wrong, but I think that's more a matter of name recognition to separate the Marvel Avengers from the theoretically-more-well-known-over-there 60's Avengers. I was also just talking to a friend though who reminded me that international copyright and trademark laws are even goofier than the US laws on the same subject. In my previous post I thinking of the latter and not the former.

Cool, thanks.

Originally Posted by Hyperstrike English does not borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and rifles through their pockets for loose grammar.

Samuel L. Jackson is playing Nick Fury? z0mg!