Thursday, October 30, 2008

Justice League Q&A w/Ian Austin

First, a little bit about yourself. You’ve been around the VS world for a long time now. What other projects have you worked on and what’ve been some of your more enjoyable experiences?

Where to start?

Probably with Jackson Cruise. That's been an on-off property for years that I can't shake. I know conventional logic would be to ditch it, but I... I don't think I want to. The VS has basically meshed with me to such an extent that I don't think I'll ever be fully rid of it. Out of everything I've done, it's the one thing I feel a connection to above all else. It's something I feel I have to fight for, to stand up for, to call out 'No, it isn't that bad' about. It's imperfect and flawed, but I've done nearly a dozen versions (in different mediums), and I think it'd be truly sad for me to never think about how to do it.

I did some work on the Buffy/Angel continuations, but I can't write Buffy-speak. At all. There's a pattern to the dialogue that eludes me. I remember trying to write one episode, and feeling physically sick at how bad the first line was. Over and over. It's probably a fault of mine that I physically change with writing and how much it drains me, but I do think it forces the writing to take on a unique quality. Whether that's good or not, who knows... but those experiences were, though no fault of anyone else, somewhat unpleasant for my mental state. Somethings just shouldn't be done, especially when you love a show so much that you set an impossible task for yourself.

Then I moved onto SIB. Or Chris & Sunday, as it was known. I wish every VS gig could be that awesome. It was fun. Pure fun. Me, Lee and the crew were making it up as we went along and having the most fun, ever. There's a scene in Death Proof where they talk about an awesome film shoot, and it sums up how SIB was. Sadly I left after S1, and sometimes I think about what it'd be like to go back. Even enquire. But I think I made the right call - I have terrific memories of the crash-course in VS writing, as well as an episode (1x08) that, while primitive, is something I'd proud of because I was given carte-blanche to come up with something that I wanted to do... and thus told a story that I think stands up, despite being primitive and having NHL Hockey (Sega) references aplenty.

DSR and Schism were pretty good. I liked just being able to write, and flexing different muscles in making an outline work for me and my sensibilities.

Daredevil... well, S2 is going to air eventually, so I'll just give a sly no comment - no, the truth is I dropped the ball. I'd been waiting years to do that show, and when I did it I let myself down by suffering from 'you wished for it, you got it' syndrome. That and the atrocious outline for 1x10 that plagued me. Now I'm back and intend to make it much more focused. I'm thankful that I get the chance to go back to it, and like to think that I have matured. It's difficult to do VS writing as it is slightly thankless in terms of when you write an episode and it goes out there, it doesn't really belong to you anymore, and the high you had quickly vanishes... but at the same time, you get a rush from that high that you'll always have a vague memory of.

Let’s talk comic book to screen adaptations for a moment here. You’ve been rather outspoken about staying true to the core of a character instead of, for lack of a better term, Hollywood-izing and taking creative license during the translation. What would you say has been the most faithful live action realization of a comic character?

Iron Man.

I know I'll get shit for that from Batman fanboys, but seeing Iron Man was seeing the personification of a character on screen. RDJ was Tony Stark, for better or worse - to the extent whereby I doubt anyone else could pull the character off. It isn't just appearance, it's the whole package; which is likely due to the fact that he has a lot of the demons Stark has.

And the worse?

That's more difficult. I know a lot of people hate Spawn as a film, but with no comic-book context it doesn't offend me particularly. George Clooney gets a bad rep for Batman & Robin, but within the confine of the film he works tonally. Now he's not the best, or even particularly good, but he fits into the universe. Same with Nicholas Cage in Ghost Rider - the film's awful, but he does a reasonable representation of the character. I think, for this, I'd have to go with Dafoe in Spider-Man. He's entertaining, but far too hammy and over the top. The guy is a great actor, but we never really get a sense that Norman is all there. And that conflicts with the vaguely serious style Tobey has to a grating extent.

Would you say that those two subsequently are the best and worse films of the lot or are there examples that deviated and still managed to be entertaining and well done?

Iron Man and Daredevil are the best in terms of faithfulness to the comic, Batman Begins and X-Men II are (however) on a whole other spectrum of awesome because they adapt the stories and lend them into a relevancy which means non-geeks can dig on them.

As for the worst, I'm not a fan of The Dark Knight, but I think you'd have to put X-Men III up there. Just a terrible piece of cinema I'm afraid - it doesn't work as a comic-book adaptation, as an action film, as a sequel, as a finale or as a film in it's own right. It is just awful, awful noise.

What’s your personal preference? DC or Marvel? Do you feel like there's enough of a distinctive flavor (for lack of a better word) in each verse to have a preference?

I'm more a Marvel guy because I tend to like human stories. DC is terrific in terms of presenting these greek tragedies, but that's not really my thing. I think they both bring something great to the table, and there's some phenomenal DC TPBs out there (Watchmen and Identity Crisis are as good as anything you'll ever get from the medium), but for consistency and characters it has to be Marvel all the way.

Alright, onto Justice League in particular, I guess the most obvious question is why a movie and not a series?

Because a series demands a looseness that I don't think works. With the team, you really need to focus and bring them together for a reason. In a series, it would feel too much like Heroes in having people gradually come together to fight this big monster, whereas in the film I can bring them together quickly and have more of a structured piece.

Unlike a lot of comic book “teams” the Justice League is comprised of characters that all had their own worlds and mythologies created well before the coming together. What do you think makes this conglomeration of characters work given most of them have been leads on their own? There’s certainly the potential for a “too many chiefs, not enough Indians” syndrome.

Actually, that's why I didn't include Batman and Superman. Those two, from my POV, are too iconic to work as part of a team. Even when they do, you'll usually find they're separated quickly because it's hard to buy those two having difficulty against a villain if they're working as a solid unit. That, and their personal systems of morality mean there'd be a lot of clashing when, really, I'm more interested in the team coming together than it being all about Bats and Supes light vs. dark rhetoric.

In regards to the characters, worlds and mythologies - I can see that. But these guys and gals I've chosen strike me as being far more effective in terms of a team. They each bring something to the table. I'm sure someone can argue Wonder Woman doesn't need a team, but I think it's more than just a physical need - mentally, emotionally, spiritually, all of these characters have a built in desire to be part of something greater than their own mythologies.

Before we get into the story itself, the cast list is missing two notable names in Batman and Superman. What prompted you to leave those two characters out, given they’re easily the most popular of the bunch?

I gave an answer above, but I think the popularity is another key point. Both characters are so iconic and so popular that they'd overshadow everyone else. And I wanted an ensemble feel here, so they both went straight away. Wonder Woman has a third-ring feel to her DC wise, people don't know much about her so I can deconstruct and have her as part of a team without feeling like I've dropped the ball.

Without giving away too much, tell us a bit about the story and the thought process behind it?

The basic gist is that you're taking a group of people with different backgrounds, and bringing them together to save the world. It's not a complex story, it's more about taking on responsibility and learning to rise about yourself to do what has to be done.

Are you writing this with the intentions of potential follow up efforts? Either screenplay or series?

At this stage, no. I leave it open-ended, but I'm not looking at a franchise. It's one story told effectively that has a start, a middle and an end. There could be more stories, but I'm not into this fad of trilogies. The stories have to work on their own merits.

Of all the team members, which character do you think would be a natural fit for a series and which do you think wouldn’t work on a smaller scale like that? There’s a gap in how much suspension of disbelief is plausible for a series or movie as opposed to a comic book. Granted, that’s likely more due to the entertainment industry’s standards than anything, but still a character like say, Galactus wouldn’t work as a prime time television villain, in my opinion.

Oliver Queen could leap into a series. He's got a natural lead character schtick to him, but not so much that he can't play with others as his solid recurring role on Smallville shows. There's also his low-key style of attack - the problem with a Flash is that it'd be too effects heavy. In a screenplay that works because he's not always doing something, but in a script it'd get a little dull to constantly have him rushing off to save the day. Not to mention that he's capable of running so fast he time-travels; which puts a damper on realism and the limitations of his power. Wonder Woman could work in a series, Black Canary too. The Martian Manhunter would get a bit old, because you'd have him in human visage so much that it'd become a dull hybrid of other 'I want to be human' dribble.

I agree with you on Galactus. In the FF sequel people threw a tantrum because he didn't exist in his comic template, but really... how lame would that be? It's something that works in comic-books, but would be goofy in real-life. Same with the Sentinels in X-Men, the glimpse in X-Men III was pretty mediocre and goofy looking.

How much of the animated series have you seen? JLA’s another in a line of high quality DC cartoons that have been churned out over the last two decades, starting with the Batman Animated Series (a personal favorite of mine).

I've seen bits of it. Seemed to respect the genre, which was cool.

Last question. Would you say a medium like a virtual series or an animated series has an easier go of it in terms of translating these characters than a live action interpretation? Casting alone has a contentious point of a lot of these films. I remember a huge uproar over all of the casting for the Daredevil film.

Oh, the DD uproar. Pure idiocy. They didn't touch The Kingpin's background, his personality, his attitude or his nature - but people got upset because he wasn't white. It's ridiculous. Michael Clark Duncan nailed The Kingpin as well as anyone else could have. I'd even say Affleck did a pretty good job.

I think that an animated series has an easy go because they just draw what's on a comic-book page, in live-action you'll rarely get an exact replica. RDJ looks like Tony Stark, but usually you'll see a fair bit of artistic license in a character. Which is fine by me - Hugh Jackman's too tall to be Wolverine, but he's such a good actor that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

Appreciate the responses and we look forward to the movie in August.

Thanks for the questions.