DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (Page 16 of 19)

yeah, Ben Afflec had written in his contract that he would appear as batmam/bruce wayne in up to 10 films. As the plan was to have him be the Nick Fury role of the DC Extend Universe.  No idea why all of the JLA actors wouldn't have similar deals especially being that they were following the marvel film formula.

With Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Suicide Squad being big hits Superman, JLA, BvsS making big money no idea why they would change directions, a JLA using a Aquaman and Wonder Woman that audiences apparently like, keep Calvin Superman, and if Afflec is out just workaround it with Batman not answering the call, or have bruce out of commission with Azreal showing up in the Batman costume,could do after effects of the Bane storyline, with the team dealing with Azreal Batman.

With W

Something I often wished comic books would do -- I've always thought that each character's comic or line of comics should take place in their own universe but with versions of the other characters. By which I mean that SUPERMAN titles would feature a consistent universe between them, but the FLASH comic book would be set in its own universe.

The Flash could guest-star SUPERMAN or ACTION COMICS or MAN OF STEEL or SUPERGIRL or what-have-you, but it would be the SUPERMAN-universe's version of the Flash and vice versa. Over in SUPERMAN, you might have aliens emigrating to planet Earth, but in THE FLASH, there would be no indication of any such storyline. The JUSTICE LEAGUE title would feature independent versions of the characters and the writer could pick and choose what aspects of the individual titles to acknowledge and which to ignore.

I'd be quite content for each movie to serve its own purpose rather than the larger conglomerate even if that diffuses the original intent of a shared cinematic universe.

Sounds like Will Smith is out of Suicide Squad 2.  No Deadshot or Harley certainly makes me think that it's more of a "hard" reboot than a sequel.  I wonder if they'll get back Viola Davis back.

I don’t know why Warner Bros. is recasting Deadshot, but the optics are certainly interesting. It suggests, along with Ezra Miller saying that DC movies exist in a cinematic multiverse as opposed to a cinematic universe, that the Worlds of DC films will only connect loosely to previous films if at all.

Much as the James Bond reboot kept Judi Dench despite starting all over again, the Worlds of DC SUICIDE SQUAD will retain some elements of the DCEU SUICIDE SQUAD while leaving others aside. It allows a future film to feature Ezra Miller’s Barry teaming up with whoever takes over from Ben Affleck; it allows post-Snyder creators to come in without needing to reboot again. Or, I dunno, there’s some sexual arrangement between Idris Elba and the WB president. Haha! (Sorry.)

From a financial standpoint, Will Smith is one of the biggest stars in Hollywood and comes with quite a pricetag. I assume Idris Elba is not remotely as expensive and indicates WB moving forward with DC as a brand name rather than a vehicle for any particular star, although that can shift. For the longest time, it seemed like Tom Cruise would play Tony Stark and few expected the role would go to a disgraced, uninsurable wreck of an actor who had been fired off a supporting role in a FOX comedy, or that said wreck would turn his life around and become the defining standard bearer for the franchise.

Anyway. Maybe Michael B. Jordan will play Superman after all!

So Zack Snyder has come out again in defense of a Batman that kills.  His argument is, essentially, that people that don't think Batman would kill need to grow up.  He's out there fighting and people are going to die as a result.

I think that's a fair statement, but then what separates Batman from the Punisher?  If Batman kills, what separates him from someone like Azrael?  Should there be a separation?

The biggest argument against Snyder-Batman's style of killing, in my opinion, is "if Batman is willing to kill for the greater good, why is the Joker still alive?"  I think Bruce knows in his heart that he's putting people in danger by letting the Joker live, in whatever version of the story you want to consider.  The Joker regularly breaks out, people end up dead, and Batman puts him back.  It's their character dynamic.

And yet you have a version of Batman in the DCEU that is willing to kill and there's a version of the Joker that's alive.  Those two things don't jive together.  If Batman is willing to kill a random thug who just happens to be working for the real bad guy, why wouldn't he kill the real bad guy?  To be fair to Snyder, we never see anyone else in the rogue's gallery.  Maybe the Riddler and Two-Face and the Penguin are all dead.  Maybe there's a psychological block to being able to kill the Joker.

But at the same time, he let Harley live.  He let Deadshot live.

I think I'm okay with a Batman that kills.  But then he's just high-tech Punisher.  And you have to explain what his code is, if he has one.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but I wanted to focus on this.  I think it's legitimate, but like a lot of the DCEU, I think there are too many inconsistencies.  Snyder definitely wanted to try and do this realistically, and some of the more realistic items are the more controversial.  Namely the Battle of Metropolis and Batman's killing.

Would a fight between Superman and Zod result in a city-destroying event?  Absolutely.  You have two gods fighting, and the evil god is the better trained one.  I think Superman did the best he could because I don't think Zod would've been drawn out of the city, and I don't think Superman could've made him if he wanted.  The fight was realistic.  My issue is with the aftermath.  The Battle of Metropolis would've been the biggest thing to ever happen, and it's, for the most part, written off.  Snyder wanted to do the realistic thing and then move on.  There's a disconnect between realistic Superman and the comic book Metropolis he wants.

Would Batman end up killing people?  Absolutely.  Not only would his strength and skill make him lethal for almost any human to fight, but Batman would need to use lethal force to quickly move in and out of dangerous situations.  To save Martha in time, Batman had to crush people quickly in the warehouse fight.  I honestly believe he used excessive force in the Batmobile chase prior to his first confrontation with Superman, but maybe he did what he needed to do.  Again, I don't have a problem with the realism - again, my problem is with the rest of it.  If Batman kills, that's fine.  But would Gordon be okay with a Batman that regularly kills?  Did Batman always regularly kill, and if so, when did he start?  Because Gordon seems pretty okay with Batman in Justice League - there isn't any sort of "as long as you've stopped killing, we're good again" stuff.  There's a disconnect between realistic Batman and the comic book Gordon he wants.

Maybe?

Honestly, I didn't even go to see CAPTAIN MARVEL in theatres. I have a new 55 inch tv with a subwoofer and lights behind the screen so there's no reflection on the screen and it seems silly to go our and pay for movie tickets when I have so much I can watch at home and when it suits me. It probably says something that rather than running out to see AQUAMAN and SHAZAM, I stayed home to watch Jerry O'Connell fight crime.

(It doesn't say anything about the franchise. I’ll comment when I can watch it at home.)

I saw Aquaman.  I'll have more comments later, but one note quick:

I don't understand how the DCEU is structured, and it bothers me.  I understand that each movie sorta has its own free reign to do what it needs to do, but Aquaman doesn't even feel like the same universe as Justice League. 

I wondered, going in, what the connection would be.  And the answer is....there's one line.  They mention Steppenwolf and the idea that Aquaman is a known superhero.  So the movie happened and they're not simply ignoring it.

Except they sorta are.  There's only a couple of scenes from Justice League that relate to Aquaman, and both of them have wildly contradictory parts.  The air bubble thing is fine, I guess.  It doesn't make any sense for them to have to create air bubbles to talk, but they would've also known that for the scene in Justice League.  What bothers me more is....I don't even know how Arthur knew where to go.  No one seems bothered by him inside that room where they protect the box (even though he's hated by the masses and arrested for simply going into Atlantis), and there didn't seem to be any indication of why he went there.

The relationship between Mera and Arthur seems confusing when you look at both movies, but I think it's fine.  What's stranger is that Arthur seems angry at his mother in Justice League.  Maybe he's putting on some sort of act in front of the Atlantean ("I hated my mom because she was Atlantean" or something), but there's no indication of that in Aquaman.  He loves his mother and is mad at the ones responsible for killing her.

Being separate entities is fine.  Giving directors free reign to build characters is fine.  But that's how it is on the Arrowverse, but the crossover still has mostly-consistent characterization and continuity.

As someone who, believe it or not, really wants the DCEU to survive...I just find it weird that it feels so different.  I know they want to get away from the Snyder aesthetic, but I think contrasting a gloomy, dark surface world with a colorful, hopeful Atlantis might've done well.  I don't think they needed a Justice League cameo because Arthur's a bit of a loner who's completely separated from the rest of the heroes.

But maybe it's Bruce who gets Arthur the plane?  Or maybe make the tie-ins in Justice League better/more consistent to what Wan is doing?  Because if you told me that Zach Snyder didn't talk to James Wan, I'd believe you.

... I still haven't watched AQUAMAN. I have it on Google Play.

Should I watch it? Is it worth watching?

Should I watch it in my home theatre or is it okay to watch it on my tablet in bed?

I watched AQUAMAN. It was good. I liked the painterly look of the undersea sequences and the special effects sequences. I enjoyed the way the rock songs highlighted and embraced the absurdity of the events. The only issue I had was Mera. She's a vivid and engaging character and Amber Heard is terrific, but I didn't understand how or why Mera rejected the caste and class system of Atlantis or what her motives her for helping Arthur and sacrificing her entire life or why she stood against her father. I understood her principles, but I didn't understand where they came from or who would have taught them to her.

Her motive seemed to be that the movie wanted the leading man to have a beautiful woman who would beat up plenty of villains and always provide him with exposition and help. Heard gives Mera a lot of inner life, but the script isn't specific as to what that life is. Even Dr. Caitlin Snow on THE FLASH had getting over the death of her fiance to explain her need to help Barry and use him as a substitute.

**

AQUAMAN is not consistent with JUSTICE LEAGUE and would require Geoff Johns sized retcons to make it fit. JUSTICE LEAGUE has Arthur declaring that his mother abandoned him as an infant, left him on his father's doorstep and never gave him another thought. AQUAMAN has Arthur raised for several years by his mother and father until an Atlantean attack forces her to flee; then Arthur thinks she was murdered. JUSTICE LEAGUE has air pockets to allow underwater speech; AQUAMAN has Atlanteans converse through water directly.

If you were determined to make it fit, you could say that during JUSTICE LEAGUE, Arthur had clues that his mother might be alive and was pretending to claim no interest in finding her to avoid raising suspicions. You could say that forming air bubbles around Atlanteans is for privacy from other water dweller or even a form of courtship and flirtation. But it's an inconsistency just as BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title) had Wonder Woman declaring that she walked away from humanity after World War I when WONDER WOMAN shows no such event at all.

Ezra Miller has said that DC movies don't form a cinematic universe but a cinematic multiverse. If you are being strict about the continuity, AQUAMAN and WONDER WOMAN are set in separate universes from MAN OF STEEL, BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title) and JUSTICE LEAGUE and feature doubles of the characters we met in those three films. AQUAMAN seems to have been made with Warner Bros. new approach of abandoning the DC Extended Universe in favour of a Worlds of DC approach.

Interesting.  I'm not the biggest fan of Abrams as a director, but I think he'd give fans what they're looking for.  I would probably rather bring Cavill back and do a Batman-less movie and make it a sequel and not a reboot.  Add in Shazam and maybe Green Lanterns.

But if they can recast Superman and Pattinson works, I'm sure Abrams can make a fun Justice League movie.

I didn't see it. I imagine it's good; Todd Phillips is a great director. JOKER just isn't what I look for in superheroes or even spinoffs. To me, what I want in a superhero show is best represented in BATWOMAN with Ruby Rose beating up thugs with her bare hands and representing empowerment in the face of social and institutional discrimination and rejection. That said, I have read the script for JOKER, so I can discuss the screenplay.

I think the story is effective. It explores how a socially awkward, isolated man decides that the only way he can relate to society and affect the world is through cruelty, violence, savagery in order to achieve the dominance and control he couldn't find in his day job or relationships. It's a well-told story. I would have liked for the JOKER screenplay to show how Arthur Fleck had the option of choosing another path instead of becoming a serial killer -- but that wouldn't be a JOKER story.

Slider_Quinn21 is right to say that the Joker in most media adaptations and comics has a genius-level intellect for sadism and plotting and manipulation. Arthur Fleck is incompetent. Phillips, in interviews, suggested that Fleck isn't even THE Joker -- merely the progenitor of the aesthetic which the actual Joker would adopt as his own.

I don't really know what else to say about that except to change the subject. My story of choice for addressing sociopathy and rejection is closer to BATMAN titles from 2001 - 2006.

Mark Waid wrote a JUSTICE LEAGUE story where it's revealed that Batman has developed methods of killing Superman, Wonder Woman, the Flash, Aquaman, Green Lantern, Plastic Man and anyone else who's ever been on the team. The files are stolen by R'as Al Ghul who proceeds to use them all and while the team survive, the League kicks Batman out.

Subsequent writers doubled-down on this characterization with Batman as a cruel, manipulative, distant figure with nothing but disdainful, contemptuous comments towards Tim Drake (Robin at the time), Spoiler (Tim's partner and girlfriend), Huntress, Nightwing -- and at one point, when Bruce feels he's getting too close to his girlfriend Vesper Fairchild, he stages a scene where she finds him in Wayne Manor naked with various prostitutes and models -- specifically so that she'll dump him and he can spend more time fighting crime.

Bruce becomes so unbearable that Alfred quits and moves in with Robin, and then it's later revealed that Batman developed a global surveillance system to monitor all superheroes, a system that the villains gain control of leading to the 2005 INFINITE CRISIS storyline. Batman tries to save his friends, but he's turned all of them against him and no one trusts him anymore. He collapses with grief in the Batcave only for Superman to appear -- but it's not the Superman whom Bruce knows.

It's the Superman of the 1930s from an alternate timeline. This Superman tells Bruce that what's happened is not his fault: the DC Universe has become a dark, cruel, unforgiving world and Batman is merely a symptom, and Superman asks for Batman's help to reboot and overwrite this reality with a kinder, better one.

But Batman refuses, saying that what's happened is his fault, not anyone else's -- because the Dick Grayson of this universe isn't an abrasive monstrosity who's turned on his friends because the world around him got dark. Batman is responsible for his actions.

At the climax of the story, the world is saved, but Batman is so broken that he holds a gun on Alexander Luthor and has to be talked down. Truly ashamed, Bruce apologizes to the Justice League for his behaviour and asks for their forgiveness. He declares that he is taking a leave of absence as Batman and decides to revisit the travels around the world that he took in his youth to acquire his original training. He asks Tim and Dick to accompany him.

In the 52 comic book co-written by Mark Waid, Bruce realizes that he has been experiencing a psychological breakdown due to the death of Professor Arturo -- I mean, the death of Jason Todd, the second Robin. It is a grief and guilt that he buried but eventually emerged in his need to both dominate his friends and keep them distant.

"He lost it," Dick Grayson observes. "In the end, he just lost it." Mark Waid would later apologize for the impact of his original JLA story, observing that he started the path where Batman had become "a dick" and that it was his solemn mission to fix that. The post-52 Batman appeared in BATMAN #655, a re-energized and much more positive character who adored crimefighting and working with partners and was tactically obsessive as ever, but without the depression and contempt for others.

I feel this is what superheroes are for. This is the story about sociopathy that I'd want to see. But I recognize that the JOKER is not a superhero and this is not his story.

This isn't related to the current DC universe, if one even still exists....

But I watched the teaser trailer for Superman Returns on repeat today.  One, I think that might be my favorite teaser trailer of all time.  It's so well done.  I don't like the movie very much.

Second, it's nuts to me that Brandon Routh, now cemented as a fixture in the Arrowverse, was the lead in a Superman franchise.  Not that he doesn't have the ability (I don't think he's the reason that movie doesn't work) but it's just crazy to think about.

Yeah, but at the same time, I can't really see Henry Cavill doing something like the Arrowverse.

But, I agree.  The Arrowverse isn't exactly purgatory - most of the TV and film stars have come back in some form or another.  And Routh coming back as Superman sorta legitimizes it more, since Routh is technically playing the same character as Christopher Reeve played.  So while it was cool to tie the Arrowverse to the 90s Flash, it's going to be even cooler when it ties to the 70s Superman.

Yeah, I don't think it's Routh's fault.  I had a lucky break, and the movie didn't perform.  I think it's okay to leave it at that.  It's more a testament to Routh, who found a way to pick great memorable roles (like in Scott Pilgrim) and then make Ray Palmer his own in such a way that I now find him to be a completely weird choice for Superman.  Even when I briefly saw him in the teaser for Crisis, it felt more like a Ray Palmer cosplay than Superman.

But I have confidence in him as an actor enough that he'll slip back into Clark and make us believe he can fly again

It took 20 years for the Richard Donner cut of SUPERMAN II to come out on DVD, so maybe we’ll get Snyder’s cut in 20 years on telepathic psigraph in 6D.

My logic here may be fuzzy because I'm at home sick, but I think SUPERMAN II: THE DONNER CUT was made because of the lucrative DVD market and because completing a somewhat makeshift Donner cut with some CG work would lead to significant units sold at Best Buy and whatnot.

We're currently in a world where CBS couldn't justify remastering DEEP SPACE NINE and VOYAGER to high definition because streaming services destroyed the home video market to the point where CBS lost money on the remastered NEXT GENERATION blu-rays. The economics don't encourage Warner Bros. to release a second edition of a movie that already failed the first time.

That said, I find it intriguing that all the people who hated Zack Snyder's vision for the DCEU insist that his version of JUSTICE LEAGUE must be good. It's very easy to dislike the movie you saw while insisting the movie you didn't see is the epitome of excellence because it is purely hypothetical. And Snyder's JUSTICE LEAGUE, in addition to existing largely in terms of the imagination, is also the first part of a duology where there won't be a second. Warner Bros. is wise to cut their losses.

But I do expect the Snyder Cut to come out some day, just not under present circumstances. It's not a never-ever situation, just a not-right-now.

It's strange: I said earlier in this thread that there was no BIRDS OF PREY movie in production. Informant corrected me. Having come back from a screening, I'd say that there is still no BIRDS OF PREY movie; there is a HARLEY QUINN movie that was inexplicably greenlit with the title BIRDS OF PREY (and the subtitle "the fantabulous emancipation of one Harley Quinn"). I don't understand WHY. The Birds of Prey have never been Harley Quinn's team; they're Barbara Gordon's team.

The BIRDS OF PREY comic emerged when Alan Moore (WATCHMEN) crippled Batgirl in THE KILLING JOKE (and didn't establish her character within his story, only using her as a female body to be brutalized to make the story seem more serious). Writers John Ostrander and Kim Yale were horrified and, in their SUICIDE SQUAD title, established that the wheelchair bound Barbara had adopted a new identity, Oracle, using her hacker skills to be home base handler to superheroes in the field. Ned Leeds in SPIDER-MAN HOMECOMING remarks that every superhero has "the guy in the chair" who guides him. SMALLVILLE had Chloe Sullivan as Watchtower; ARROW had Felicity Smoak; THE FLASH had the Star Labs team; LEGENDS OF TOMORROW has Gideon -- and all these voices whispering in the ears of superheroes owe their existence to Barbara Gordon as Oracle in the BIRDS OF PREY comic books.

BIRDS OF PREY usually featured Black Canary (Dinah Lance) as the lead agent in the field while Oracle guided her via Bluetooth earpiece from the computerized information hub of the secret Clocktower location. Over time, Power Girl, Huntress and others would cycle in and out, but it was Oracle and Black Canary's comic. When Barbara regained her mobility and became Batgirl again, Black Canary was the lead for a time, but the book was eventually rebranded as BATGIRL AND THE BIRDS OF PREY. BIRDS OF PREY is Barbara's book. Why is the BIRDS OF PREY title adorning a HARLEY QUINN movie?

It's especially confusing to me because the movie was made because Margot Robbie was so delightfully popular and beloved as both a performer and as Harley Quinn in SUICIDE SQUAD. WB wanted to capitalize on both -- so why didn't they title the movie accordingly? I have this image of some Warner Bros. executive hoping to launch additional female properties out of a HARLEY QUINN spinoff. Then gathering a list of DC Comics brands that relate to female characters. Then getting BIRDS OF PREY confused with GOTHAM CITY SIRENS, a comic that featured Harley Quinn, Poison Ivy and Catwoman as flatmates.

Then approving the title and hiring a director and a writer and being too embarrassed to fix it after noticing it  and only amending the mistake now by having theatres present the title as HARLEY QUINN: BIRDS OF PREY after a weak opening.

The movie is a lot of fun. Margot Robbie's craziness is totally captivating. The editing and direction are brilliantly propulsive in telling a somewhat disjointed story that reflects Harley Quinn's madness. The high comedy and absurdity are a good match for the ridiculously cartoonish violence. The hyperspeed pacing of the film makes it fly by. It is a fun, fun film --  but the title! Harley even emphasizes in the film that she is not one of the Birds of Prey; she is not a crimefighter. She is not a superhero.

I am truly baffled by why WB allowed this movie to be called what it is and at a loss as to why they had it rated R when the only element that would prevent this from airing on the CW is the profanity.

As a girl gang movie, HARLEY QUINN could have appealed deeply to teenaged girls who will have to sneak in or find an adult to accompany them. Harley Quinn represents every young woman seeking to define herself without needing a man to do it; every girl with mental health issues seeking to assert herself and prove her worth; every adolescent female seeing that the world is weighted against women and going mad.

The film has inexplicably been assigned a title from a property largely unrelated to the lead character. It has cut itself off from the very audience to whom it would speak loudest. I don't understand how this happened.

Thanks for the link! Margot Robbie's thought process is... puzzling and misguided, to say the least. I'm not sure if Robbie trying to co-opt the BIRDS OF PREY brand was egotistical in the way Tom Cruise (successfully) turned MISSION IMPOSSIBLE from a team-based series with a rotating cast into a star vehicle for him and him alone. Did Robbie want to become synonymous with BIRDS OF PREY in the same way and take the name for herself?

It's possible, but given how BIRDS OF PREY establishes a team called the Birds of Prey and promptly declares that Harley Quinn isn't on it, I get the sense that Robbie misunderstood and misidentified the core elements of the BIRDS OF PREY. She says in her interview that BIRDS OF PREY seemed to be open to featuring any female superhero or anti-hero in the DC Universe and she rejected GOTHAM CITY SIRENS as a title because it was about Harley, Poison Ivy and Catwoman as Gotham-based women with a penchant for seduction. That's fair, but Robbie seems to think that BIRDS OF PREY was a generic brand for any superheroine and that is simply not the case.

While the 2000 BIRDS OF PREY TV show had many, many, many faults, it was ultimately true to the concept: the show featured Barbara Gordon as a wheelchair-bound Oracle of cyberspace guiding her superhero field agents through crimefighting missions. It wasn't a completely faithful adaptation: Barbara's field agent was Huntress instead of Black Canary; the Black Canary character was represented as a teenager (later revealed to be the daughter of a more comics-accurate Black Canary); the Huntress was Bruce Wayne's daughter (which the Huntress was in a parallel universe, but in the prime universe where the BOP comic is set, she wasn't related to Batman).

The show was bound to Gotham whereas the comic was a globetrotting series; the show had Alfred who at most cameoed in the comic -- but it was still about a woman with a disability leading a superhero team from within her base of operations. It was still BIRDS OF PREY.

The BIRDS OF PREY movie is not about a woman with a disability leading a team from her base of operations. In fact, Harley Quinn is never even on the team. I think making a HARLEY QUINN movie and making a BIRDS OF PREY movie were completely at odds; at best, the Birds of Prey are a tangent. It'd be like retitling the SPIDER-MAN HOMECOMING to be called NED LEEDS: THE GUY IN THE CHAIR FOR PARKER or retitling IRON MAN to be called JARVIS: THE STARK DIGITAL ASSISTANT or retitling the JAMES BOND series to be called THE MAN WITH THE WALTHER PISTOL or retitling SLIDERS to be called MOTOROLA. The Birds of Prey are not irrelevant to the HARLEY QUINN movie, but it reflects how Margot Robbie had a truly irrational attachment to the title. This is not a BIRDS OF PREY movie. It's a HARLEY QUINN film with a supporting role for two characters (Huntress and Black Canary) who form a team at the end but well outside Harley's involvement or interest. It's like Robbie was caught between her job to make a HARLEY QUINN film and her desire to make a BIRDS OF PREY movie and tried to do both in one film.

Tom Cruise was scorned and ridiculed for what he did to the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE series, but he got through it because (a) he eventually allowed the team concept to re-establish itself and (b) he was financing the films with his own production company instead of having the studio assume all the cost and risk of his creative obsessions. I don't see that happening with Margot Robbie; she's brilliant, but she's not the only person in the world who has or will play Harley Quinn.

Creatively -- I think it works out fine. The movie is extremely enjoyable and an absolute joy. From a marketing standpoint, however, the title makes no sense whatsoever and suggests an ensemble; it suggests that BIRDS OF PREY is another team film with Harley in a supporting role like she was in SUICIDE SQUAD when it is in fact the Harley Quinn spin-off focused on Harley Quinn. And Margot Robbie seemed to also have an irrational attachment to an R-rating that is totally unnecessary; a version of this HARLEY QUINN film with "damned" instead of "fucking" would still be the same movie and teenaged girls -- the perfect audience for this story -- could have gotten in to see it.

It's a shame because Robbie is an amazing performer and creator and clearly had a meaningful and special vision for producing her film and battling for her ideas -- but she seemed ludicrously insistent on (a) making her HARLEY QUINN movie launch characters who weren't Harley Quinn (b) choosing a title that emphasizes characters who aren't Harley Quinn and (c) acquiring a content rating that would keep Harley Quinn's most devoted fans from seeing the HARLEY QUINN movie.

Temporal Flux once expressed some concern that Warner Bros. would cancel THE FLASH on TV in order to prop up the perpetually imploding failure of the FLASH movie, a project that is perpetually unwritten and has seen multiple directors walk away from the project. After today, I am going to hazard a guess that the project is over now that the star of this unmade film has been caught on video choking a woman and throwing her to the ground.

https://screenrant.com/ezra-miller-fan- … explained/

I honestly don't believe it.  I have to assume that Snyder did most of the heavy lifting for free (even though I still saw they're going to spend 20-30 million on it). 

They obviously couldn't do Snyder's reshoots, but did he film everything?  I'm assuming they can do animation for stuff that was unfilmed or needed to be reshot.

I'll watch it.  But I've watched tons of videos and did a decent amount of research looking for why people care so much, and I haven't seen much that makes me think this version is going to blow anyone away.  Some more backstory, a couple of dropped subplots, and a few teases that will *never* be followed up on.  At least not in live action.

But for all the people who dedicated their lives to this, I'm legit happy for them.  This is a big win for nerddom.

Well, it's a cognitive bias of favouring the hypothetical over the actual, where the JUSTICE LEAGUE that wasn't seen is considered superb and truthful and masterful because there's no evidence to the contrary while the JUSTICE LEAGUE that was seen is deficient and flawed because it can actually be evaluated.

While I enjoyed JUSTICE LEAGUE a lot, it is an objective fact that the general public disliked the movie if they went to see it at all. I have literally never heard anyone other than you, me, Informant and Kevin Smith speak well of the film.

I hope that, for the sake of the Snyder fans, the film will be edited so as to not leave unfinished subplots.

I imagine there could be some additional dialogue recording and replacement, but I doubt anybody got back into physical shape and costume to complete this film.

Anyway. I thought MAN OF STEEL was a good Zack Snyder movie that reflected the themes, interests and style of Zack Snyder. If you don't like Zack Snyder (and I'm not really a fan, but I respect his craft), you will not like MAN OF STEEL. I felt that the ULTIMATE VERSION of BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title) was a good movie -- lacking in the hope and optimism I'd prefer for superheroes, but just because a project isn't aligned with my tastes doesn't mean it can't be good. I enjoyed JUSTICE LEAGUE as a hybrid of Zack Snyder's brutalism with Joss Whedon's quippy humour, but I respect that for normal people, it did not work at all.

Hasn't this been confirmed?  There's an explosion in the trailer, and I thought I saw something about her stopping one bomb but missing the other.

I respect Snyder's vision.  I respect that he wants to create a realistic world where gods walked the earth.  They'd be controversial.  They'd be human.  They'd be fallible.   Superman would be frustrated and would miss a bomb going off.  Wonder Woman would save one group but miss another.  Batman would certainly kill people, either accidentally or on purpose.  If Superman fought another Kryptonian in a major city center, it would cause immense damage.

My only problem with Snyder's movies is that he doesn't give any of those things the proper weight.  Because I don't think he has any emotional tie to any of it.  I think he thinks its cool when two Kryptonians destroy a city, and I don't think he cares about the "people" in the buildings.  I think he thinks its cool when Batman uses Arkham-style violence to break spines, but I don't think he worries about the paralyzed "person" afterwards.  I'm putting "person" and "people" in quotes not because Snyder doesn't care about people, but I'm just not sure he's concerned with extras and faceless people in movies.  They don't have names, we don't see them for the most part so I don't think he cares.  Which I think is fair.

And honestly if he'd made an original property like The Boys, I think it would've been fine.  The problem is that he decided to twist *established* characters and didn't bother explaining anything.  He wanted cool shots and didn't want a scene where Alfred and Bruce talk about why he's changed so much.  He didn't want a scene where Superman actually rescues people.  He likes cool shots where Superman is dragging a tanker or slow-motion flying someone out of a burning building or floating above a flooded house.

I think BvS is *this close* to being a great movie.  I think the 5% that it's missing is 5% of the movie that Snyder didn't care about.  Its why I didn't have a huge uptick from watching the Ultimate version.  Yeah there's 40 minutes more but he didn't use any of those minutes to address what I think are huge problems.  And in my opinion, it's because he doesn't care.

https://www.comicsbeat.com/the-snyder-c … ero-genre/

A lengthy editorial on why Zack Snyder's toxic fans shouldn't be rewarded with a Snyder cut.

My response is -- I don't really care about the happiness or sadness of those people and wouldn't make decisions based on validating or repudiating them. Zack Snyder had a vision and he was asked to make it come to life until he wasn't. His cut is sitting semi-finished on his hard drive during a time when superhero movies and TV shows are not being made and cannot be made, so why not finish it off and put it out there? The ARROWVERSE has been furloughed, theatres can't allow audiences to assemble for WONDER WOMAN and whatnot, so WB might as well do something with the DC property it has nearly finished that wasn't released.

And now people have moved on to Suicide Squad - Release the Ayer cut!

https://bleedingcool.com/movies/dc-lovi … ide-squad/

https://www.ign.com/articles/zack-snyde … n-superman

No reshoots for the Snyder Cut. Just post production and effects work.

I too thought the extended home release of SUICIDE SQUAD was the Ayer cut.

Incredible! I had no idea there was so much intrigue around SUICIDE SQUAD.

David Ayer is hilarious. Someone wrote a thunderingly negative review of one of his films, BRIGHT, and Ayer proceeded to retweet the review, thank the critic for his attention and interest and detailed incisiveness, and put the review on his own fridge. It takes many years to have that good natured warmth towards negative feedback.

And now word of a Slipknot sequence that was cut from Suicide Squad.  It depicted his original capture leading into him “joining” the team.

https://bleedingcool.com/movies/suicide … ted-scene/

I'd be happy for Michael Keaton to read the phone book in a movie. To play Batman again? He's not my favourite, but if it makes people happy and makes the DC movies good, then I say go for it. Personally, I'd rather they just keep going with Robert Pattinson and have Pattinson appear in a FLASH movie.

But I'm currently operating on the view that THE FLASH will never, ever, ever be made. That if they were going to make it, they would have by now. That Ezra Miller is just done and even if Ezra Miller isn't done, I am done with him.

I seriously doubt that Ezra Miller is going to play the Flash ever again. But if I am wrong, I will write you another SLIDERS REBORN script where Rembrandt confronts Colonel Rickman and the sliders do what they should have done in the first place.