DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (Page 18 of 19)

I finished JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE SNYDER CUT: PART 5: "Something Darker: (actual title) and JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE SNYDER CUT: PART 6: "Epilogue" (actual title).

It was good. I like the part where Bruce introduces Alfred and says, "I work for him."

But it's pretty ridiculous to include flash-forwards to Darkseid conquering Earth, corrupting Superman and to have gone to the length of spending apparently $70 million dollars to film an extra flash forward to this dark future that will never be addressed again in a DC superhero movie. That said, Snyder apparently did all the extra work unpaid in order to have the creative control to create these cliffhangers that will go unresolved except in a blanket fashion with THE FLASH introducing a multiverse where Ben Affleck and Michael Keaton will both appear as separate versions of Batman.

I'm glad this four hour version exists for the fans and to have a complete picture of what JUSTICE LEAGUE was meant to be. But I can't say I like it even if I can see the craft and skill. The closing action sequences are terrific with Superman and the Flash and Cyborg working together to split the Mother Boxes while Batman buys the League time and space and Aquaman and Wonder Woman (and later Superman) fight Steppenwolf.

The Whedon cut, in contrast, had Superman effectively end the fight with Steppenwolf alone and there was the sense that Superman made the rest of the League redundant, something Snyder avoids by showing how in the flash forwards, the League are defying a mind-controlled Superman. The indication that Superman's resurrection will provide Darkseid with a perfect soldier, however, pretty much undermines any positivity or hope offered in this single film with no sequels coming.

And it seems to me that Snyder ultimately doesn't really want to do a Superman story. He wants to do a story about a superhero who might be corrupted and whose great power is dangerous and suspicious and potentially demonic -- and Superman is simply not a good choice for that kind of story because even in the Snyder version, Snyder indicates that Superman would have to be mind controlled to be evil and that it isn't anything within his actual characterization but something exterior to him.

Most creators who wanted to tell this sort of story have created Superman analogue characters: INSUFFERABLE by Mark Waid created the Olympian, RISING STARS by J. Michael Straczynski created Flagg -- but Snyder contorts Superman so much, even putting him in an all black costume that Superman only wore for one comic book arc and eliminating the Clark Kent identity by having Clark declared legally dead in BVS, something he was going to maintain for the sequels. If Snyder doesn't like Superman wearing blue and red and doesn't like the Clark Kent identity, I have to wonder why he ever tried to tell any Superman stories in the first place.

Once again, I totally see why Warner Bros. balked at having Superman in name only in JUSTICE LEAGUE and brought in Joss Whedon although that was a disaster of itself judging from the audience response and fallout that's resulted even years after its release.

I like the Whedon cut of JUSTICE LEAGUE. I love Batman quipping, "Sorry, guys -- I forgot to bring a sword," and remarking on Steppenwolf, "Jesus! He is tall." Batman telling the Flash to save one person is lovely. Superman's sunny disposition is a relief. But I understand it fell flat with the audience who expected more of Snyder's operatic darkness and found themselves watching a big budget sitcom.

And I appreciate the craft and skill and storytelling of JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE SNYDER CUT: PARTS 1 - 5: "Don't Count On It, Batman," "The Age of Heroes," "Beloved Mother," "Beloved Son," "Change Machine," "All the King's Horses," "Something Darker" and "Epilogue" (actual title). But it's a bridge to nowhere due to footage that Snyder went out of his way to film on his own time and unpaid to add to his original material. It also presents a version of Superman that would be better as a new character with a different name and costume. And it's a platform for subsequent productions that will not be made, meaning it's an extremely capable equivalent of SLIDERS' "The Seer."

A two hour version of this film without the cliffhanger elements probably should have been released to theatres. There's one alteration that Whedon made that would have fit well. In Whedon's cut, Batman refers to "the big gun" when Superman is resurrected and out of control. The secret weapon is revealed to be Lois, brought to the scene by Alfred. This neatly addressed the Knightmare situation and quietly laid it to rest. The rest should have been Snyder's movie to stand or fall on its own merits without requiring sequels if it fell. If there were sequels, the Knightmare storyline could come back; if not, the Knightmare scenario was effectively resolved.

I rewatched the Whedon cut last night and... I am really upset with Joss Whedon for being a serial abuser of women. There's no doubting that everything his ex-wife said about him was true now that Charisma Carpenter, Michelle Trachtenberg, Amber Benson, Jose Molina and ANGEL tie-in writer Jeff Mariotte have come out against him. There are horrific reports that throughout the JUSTICE LEAGUE reshoots, Whedon was mocking Snyder (who'd left to deal with his daughter's suicide) and referring to Wonder Woman as Black Widow (which suggests some serious cognitive difficulties).

Apparently, Gal Gadot refused to film the scene where Barry lands face first into her chest and Whedon threatened to destroy her career if she didn't comply. She refused and escalated it to Warner Bros. executives who told Whedon to film it with Gadot's double, Caitlin Burles. There's also Whedon clearly and deliberately having his own credit on the film come immediately before a shot of a homeless man with a sign that says, "I tried," a bit of passive-aggressiveness that was further reflected when Whedon liked a tweet calling Steppenwolf the worst DC movie villain yet.

That said... I still feel that Whedon's work itself on Snyder's footage and his own additions were strong and turned Snyder's dark, operatic material into a lightweight crowdpleaser that I concede pleased no crowds. There's this absurd myth that artists can be hurtful to others because they produce quality work; it's even more absurd when applied to Whedon whose material, on the whole, is very, very, very average and occasionally above average. By his own assessment, AVENGERS isn't a great movie, but it's a great time. I'd describe pretty much all his work that way. Whedon's products are pleasantly diverting at best.

Whedon did a great job with adding more jokes and humour to Snyder's dour sensibilities from the Flash having a panic attack before facing Steppenwolf to Aquaman confessing his fears because he sits on Wonder Woman's lasso. Whedon's Superman is a sunny joy and Henry Cavill's charisma bursts off the screen (although most viewers seem to be focused on his CG upper lip which I still don't really notice much unless I'm looking for it). Whedon did a strong pastiche of Snyder's style with the opening of racial strife, homelessness and despair set to a Leonard Cohen song that was so gripping that most viewers assumed it was Snyder's work, and gradually transitioned into a lighter style. Whedon ended his version of JUSTICE LEAGUE not with a cliffhanger that would never be resolved but a shot of the Flash and Superman racing for fun.

However, it'd be silly to call Whedon's JUSTICE LEAGUE 'better.' Whedon's JUSTICE LEAGUE, despite some voiceovers about "hope," doesn't have anything to say beyond how much fun it is to have Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, the Flash and Cyborg in the same movie. Whedon's work has never truly been about anything other than how much fun it is to have a gang of friends whether that gang of friends is headlined by Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent or Buffy and Willow or Steve Rogers and Tony Stark. While I don't like Snyder's vision a lot, Snyder's JUSTICE LEAGUE was about how power can corrupt or be corrupted. Whedon's JUSTICE LEAGUE was about two hours long.

I can see why fans coming in after BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title) were thrown off by the Whedon cut and picking at the seams. Having seen the Snyder Cut now, I can tell now more than ever which Whedon shots are Whedon's: Jason Momoa is wearing a wig in the Whedon version of Aquaman declining to join Bruce, Ezra Miller's hair shifts when he starts talking about brunch -- but Whedon's sensibilities are closer to my own: unfussy storytelling, getting to the point quickly and succinctly, undercutting any grandiosity with a quip, Batman telling Barry, "Save one person. Don't talk. Don't fight. Get in. Get one out" and assuring that after that, Barry will know what to do next. "You'll know." I wish my father had talked to me that way during one of my panic attacks when I was a child.

And interestingly, the average critic responded to the movie the way I did; the average movie critic was not a Snyder-fan, not a superhero junkie and declared that JUSTICE LEAGUE was flawed but sweet and nice enough to satisfy. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/justice-league-2017 And judging from the box office, there was an audience for pleasant diversion to the sum of $660 million -- which would have been a success if JUSTICE LEAGUE had been budgeted as a $100 million film instead of a $300 million movie.

And for the future... I suspect that no one other than me will ever watch the Whedon cut of JUSTICE LEAGUE, but it also looks to me like future DC movies will have a loose connection to any version of the film. WONDER WOMAN contradicted BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title) as Wonder Woman did not sink into isolation and despair after WWI. AQUAMAN contradicts both versions of JUSTICE LEAGUE with Arthur having a totally different relationship with his mother. SHAZAM has Superman wearing the red and blue. I do expect a lot of clamour for more Zack Snyder DC movies, but DC's slate seems to be quite full. They're looking to reboot Superman in another separate continuity film, likely with a black actor.

I think it'd be cool to get a DC Animated feature for Snyder's JL2 and JL3. I'd watch it and probably consider it good without necessarily enjoying it.

Whedon's JUSTICE LEAGUE seems to be one of the most hated movies of all time and it's sort of fitting that it will be Joss Whedon's last work in film.

Yeah.  It's also a very forgettable movie, unfortunately.  I think it'll end up alongside David Goyer's Suicide Squad, where I often forget to include it in the DCEU.

James Gunn's Suicide Squad movie looks great, by the way.

So, the new Superman reportedly to be a black Kal-el.  Val-Zod and Calvin Ellis ignored.

https://screenrant.com/black-superman-m … me-period/

Not interested.

It’s funny how Disney (and even Sony) can once again get it right with Sam Wilson and Miles Morales; but Warner still doesn’t have a clue.

I think back to that old, embellished anecdote of a board room full of fat white guys smoking cigars.  They’re reading the new pitches for DC movies and saying “People watch this shit?  Just do whatever, I guess.  But the idiot public only knows Kal-el; that’s the brand”; and then throw the papers on the table and go back to comparing yachts.

Honestly have no idea.  Never paid much attention to his scattering of appearances because it was so overtly political it was a joke.  He was SuperObama.  But at least it would be a half-ass effort of making a new character by providing the name Calvin Ellis and a change in upbringing.

Half-ass is nothing to stand up and cheer about, though.  A lot of people just don’t seem to think they deserve more than that.

This is actually not true. Snyder wanted to cut JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE SNYDER CUT into separate episodes, but Warner Bros. vetoed this as they would have had to pay the actors an additional fee for each separate installment.

I don't know what Ezra Miller is on, but Miller cannot seem to go for particularly long without one absurd incident of violence after another.

https://www.cbr.com/the-flash-ezra-mill … -arrested/
https://www.cbr.com/flash-ezra-miller-r … h-threats/

I'm also not sure what a (supposedly) grown adult is doing randomly meeting people at farmers markets to press into service as personal assistants who provide lodging and bail and in return are threatened and robbed.

If you meet Ezra Miller and Miller offers you an assistant job for no apparent reason, keep your distance, don't make eye contact and head for an exit.

Could we please be done with the DCEU Flash and Ezra Miller now?

Temporal Flux once voiced a mild terror that Warner Bros. might enact some Byzantine, Machiavellian scheme to get CW's THE FLASH cancelled so that WB's FLASH movie could take the center stage.

I assume that Berlanti Productions reads this message forum. That they spotted Temporal Flux's alarm. That they responded accordingly: they found some way to encourage Zack Snyder to cast a volatile, unstable, deranged lunatic to play the Flash and figured that the DCEU Flash situation would self-implode well after Grant Gustin would be winding down his time as the Flash.

Who is the Flash's greatest supervillain? Eobard Thawne? Professor Zoom? The Anti-Monitor? The Rogues? The Rival, Inertia, Walter West, or Godspeed?

I think it's become clear: the Flash's deadliest enemy is Ezra Miller.

Google Ezra Miller and you get a pretty comprehensive picture of how they are a complete and utter psycho. A lunatic who threatens children and their parents. A nutjob who steals work from musicians and doesn't pay them. A loon who mocks law enforcement on social media when the police are searching for them. A jackass who can't get through a month without being arrested for starting a barfight.

Warner Bros. is in serious trouble with THE FLASH, a movie where their lead actor is a violent criminal who targets children and keeps visiting the same family homes repeatedly to threaten the inhabitants with violence and guns.

Warner Bros. spent 10 years trying to get a FLASH movie together, invested $200 million on the 2023 incarnation of this film after likely spending anywhere from $15- $75 million over 10 years. They paid for scripts they didn't film, for the directors they hired and lost or fired, for holding contracts on the actors, for staffers to keep this movie inching forward.

And now their movie is filmed and is looking unreleasable because Ezra Miller is insane; nobody will look at Miller and see Barry Allen or the Flash. They'll see a maniac named Ezra Miller.

There is no profit to be made on a FLASH movie now. THE FLASH movie is a dead project, a product whose only audience will be the morbidly curious. Any movie has to earn about three times its budget to break even. Is a movie with this much bad press and a cancelled actor likely to earn $600 million? At this point, WB is in no position to refilm Miller's scenes with a new actor; Miller's in every scene.

Ezra Miller has made THE FLASH a write off. There is no DC franchise to be built on Ezra Miller. There is no FLASH movie series with Ezra Miller. No one will ever hire Ezra Miller again; you wouldn't hire Ezra Miller to handle a cash register; I wouldn't trust Ezra Miller to wash my windows. There is no sequel to be made with Ezra Miller; there is no DC Universe series to emerge from any Ezra Miller production.

Temporal Flux once expressed the fear that Warner Bros. would actively destroy CW's THE FLASH show to prop up the FLASH movie; THE FLASH movie has self-destructed all on its own with a determined psychosis that would make David Peckinpah retreat and Bill Dial weep.

Maybe Warner Bros. will use deepfake technology to replace Ezra Miller's face with Timothée Chalamet or Lucas Till. I've written elsewhere that deepfake is fine for a few shots but creates a stiff, inhumanly robotic presence any time you need an actual human performance... but even that would be better than releasing a movie with Ezra Miller in the lead role.

This is pretty messed up: the BATGIRL movie is being shelved despite being filmed and complete. It will not be released on HBO Max or in theatres.

https://www.cbr.com/batgirl-movie-cance … enings-dc/

$90 million dollars to make it and WB held test screenings and has decided not to release it as it is considered so terrible that it will damage the DC brand. This brand has been damaged already by the middling reception of BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN, the box office bomb that was JUSTICE LEAGUE, Affleck quitting Batman (but making cameos), the inability to get a new Henry Cavill Superman feature off the ground, BIRDS OF PREY failing to market itself as a Harley Quinn movie, and basically anything Ezra Miller ever does.

I have to wonder how bad BATGIRL is considered when WB has decided this low(er) budgeted film starring Leslie Grace, JK Simmons and Michael Keaton should never ever ever ever ever be seen by anyone outside WB. It should be noted that the pre-JUSTICE LEAGUE WB regime declared that Zack Snyder's version of JUSTICE LEAGUE was "unwatchable", but having watched the Snyder Cut, I certainly don't think that's true.

There has been a merger (WB-Discovery) since BATGIRL was first greenlit. The desire is for big budget event movies again whereas post JUSTICE LEAGUE, the wish was for lower budgeted fare like, well, BATGIRL. It's baffling to me that they'd shelve BATGIRL but be determined to release the dead-end that is Ezra Miller's FLASH movie.

Not sure what's going on here...

I have no idea what is going with the legion of headless chickens running Warner Bros. right now, but there is no sense and no reason behind much of anything they've done since MAN OF STEEL aside from WONDER WOMAN, AQUAMAN and SHAZAM turning out quite well.

BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN was re-edited into incoherence; SUICIDE SQUAD was hacked up in the edit room to chase the humour of GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY; JUSTICE LEAGUE is probably the most hated movie ever made; WONDER WOMAN 1984 had Diana have sex with a bodyjacked man without consent. They have been working on THE FLASH with Ezra Miller since 2014 and somehow haven't released it as of 2022; they nonsensically waited until Ezra Miller tried to strangle a woman and then they decided to finally shoot the film.

They released a Harley Quinn feature film that was inexplicably titled BIRDS OF PREY and nonsensically rated R over a few profanities which prevented a potential teen audience from watching the film. And despite having Henry Cavill on some sort of contract, WB can't seem to produce another Superman movie or even get him to cameo in SHAZAM.

Now they're arbitrarily cancelling a low-budget BATGIRL movie made for a streaming service while hell-bent on releasing THE FLASH with star Ezra Miller renowned for assault, harassment, threats, kidnapping, exposing small children to loaded firearms, threatening other small children, grooming. Even if BATGIRL is the worst superhero movie ever made, is it more unreleaseable than THE FLASH?

I don't know what the hell they're doing; they don't seem to know either.

I think this has more to do with Ezra Miller than most people are saying.  They can't release Batgirl until they release The Flash - otherwise Keaton being in it doesn't make sense, right?

So if they can't release the Flash, they can't release Batgirl.  So they do the tax dodge, write it off, and maybe they see if they can get fans to demand it after the Flash eventually comes out

Interesting theory that Zaslav cancelled the BATGIRL release to try to save WB's DC slate from Ezra Miller: https://www.cbr.com/batgirl-dceu-contin … cellation/

Geez.  Is there any chance the reshoots were to *end* their character's role in the DCEU?  Even if they release this movie, they can't realistically stick with Ezra as Barry, right?

Dang it, I knew that and still messed up.  Edited.

I didn't know Miller was like that.  It's hard to keep up these days.

James Gunn has been made head of the DC film division.
https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a4183 … s-dc-boss/

Henry Cavill has signed for MAN OF STEEL II, but Zack Snyder won't return to direct. No director or writer have been hired as of yet.
https://screenrant.com/superman-dcu-fut … ames-gunn/

Cavill also resigned from THE WITCHER and will be recast with Liam Hemsworth (brother of Chris).

While David Zaslav has been slashing and burning TV projects and low budget film projects, I can't imagine James Gunn working with DC unless he's been assured that he'll have reasonable blockbuster stability for his projects.

Haven't seen the movie yet.

Black Adam, as far as I'm concerned, is a villain who believes his power makes him entitled to rule Earth. Black Adam went on a murder spree to conquer 13th century Egypt, murdered Billy Batson's parents, and was generally a blood hungry lunatic.

The 1999 Justice Society of America comic by Geoff Johns (creator-showrunner of STARGIRL), however, declared that Black Adam had been corrupted by his host, Theo Adam. The host was blamed for the murders and Black Adam, freed of Theo, was presented as a hero with a massive ego rather than a villain.

However, the 52 series (a weekly 2006 comic) by Geoff Johns and other writers ultimately reverted Black Adam to a (tragic) villain. Black Adam becomes the heroic ruler of the country Kahndaq, marries the superheroine Isis, and seems to have mostly reformed. But after evil scientist team the Science Squad attacks Kahndaq and murders Black Adam's wife and numerous citizens, Black Adam attacks the country of Bialya and murders two million civillians. The heroes ultimately strip Black Adam of his powers and leave him mortal and wandering.

There was some subsequent intrigue with Black Adam, but he remained a somewhat-tragic mass murderer whose efforts to regain his powers never succeeded or stuck. After the 2011 events of FLASHPOINT, Black Adam was rebooted and all of his previous history was restarted. Since then, Black Adam has been antagonistic but ultimately well-intentioned, an anti-hero but not a villain, largely shifted to his status as Kahndaq's protector. Black Adam's massacre of Bialya never happened.

In the 2019 - 2022 DOOMSDAY CLOCK series, Dr. Manhattan merged the reboot and pre-FLASHPOINT continuities fully (and the characters' memories of the pre-FLASHPOINT conitnuity had been slowly returning).

As I understand it (although may Temporal Flux forgive me and correct me if I'm wrong): the Bialya genocide never happened, but the memories of this alternate timeline are present. This phenomenon is seen in SUPERMAN and WONDER WOMAN where Clark and Diana have conflicting memories of their continuities and origin stories, but eventually settle on a merged version while noting discrepancies. Other destroyed DC Universe cities like Bludhaven have also reappeared after DOOMSDAY CLOCK.

Anyway. Black Adam, to me, is a villain, but comic book continuity has periodically reversed or expunged his worst crimes

DC Films seems to have a very bright future for 2024 with an all-star lineup of writers including James Gunn, Tom King (BATMAN comics) and Drew Goddard (a Whedon veteran).
https://www.comicsbeat.com/dcus-gods-an … -projects/

Rumour has it that THE FLASH's ending will once again be changed to set up the James Gunn era.

Batman could be 25 - 30 in a BATMAN AND SON movie adaptation.

I think writer Grant Morrison intended Batman in the BATMAN AND SON comic storyline to be about 40 and Damian to be 10. Morrison clearly loved writing Damian, emphasizing Damian's ruthlessness and bloodthirsty lunacy as well as Damian's tiny stature and innocent face. Damian's age meant Batman and Talia conceived Damian when Batman was 30. However, Morrison changed the continuity: Morrison misremembered BATMAN: SON OF THE DEMON where Bruce and Talia have a romantic evening. Instead, Morrison scripted BATMAN AND SON to have Batman refer to an insane "eugenics experiment" where he was sedated and his biological matter harvested.

Then we had the events of FLASHPOINT and THE NEW 52 where Batman's publishing history was reduced to Batman having only been in operation for five years and he was de-aged to being 30 -- but Damian was still present as Robin. This timeline made it impossible for Damian to be 10 -- unless we go the Morrison-route where Damian is a genetically engineered clone of Bruce, produced to infancy, then artificially aged to a level where he'd be capable enough for League of Assassins combat training.

On a side note, this five year timeline also made it difficult to see how Batman could have had four Robins (Dick Grayson / Jason Todd / Tim Drake / Damian Wayne) in five years.

Since then, the events of DC REBIRTH and DOOMSDAY CLOCK revealed that Dr. Manhattan ripped a decade out of the DC Universe timeline, but Wally West's return and Superman's confrontation with Dr. Manhattan saw those 10 years start to bleed back into reality, and the SON OF THE DEMON backstory has been reinstated.

However, if James Gunn wants a younger Batman in his late 20s or early 30s, Morrison's continuity error in making Damian an altered child clone of Bruce could be used.

I can't see Christopher Nolan using a sci-fi fantasy trope like clones, but Gunn's version of Batman is supposed to exist in a shared universe of Kryptonians, Greek demi-goddesses, interstellar police forces, speedsters, monsters, time travellers and swamp things, so clones would be no big deal.

Funnily enough... Grant Morrison didn't actually write for Damian and Bruce all that much. Morrison introduced Damian in BATMAN AND SON in 2006, but Damian vanished in an explosion at the end of this short arc. Damian returned just in time for BATMAN RIP in which Batman 'died' at Darkseid's hands (was unstuck from time and space). This led into BATMAN AND ROBIN REBORN where Morrison had Dick Grayson assume the role of Batman with Damian as Robin (and Tim Drake became Red Robin).

Bruce returned to the present in 2010, but declared that Damian was completely unsuited to being Bruce's Robin and said that Dick and Damian should remain Batman and Robin in Gotham while Bruce would be a more global Batman with Batman Incorporated. This led into BATMAN INC. being Bruce's title and Dick and Damian remaining the stars of BATMAN and DETECTIVE COMICS.

The NEW 52 reboot of 2011 saw Dick return to being Nightwing and Bruce and Damian now being Batman and Robin in a relaunched BATMAN INC. title with Morrison offering no explanation beyond a time gap. The BATMAN AND ROBIN title by Peter Tomasi also focused on Bruce and Damian while the BATMAN, DETECTIVE COMICS and BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT titles focused more on Bruce.

The second volume of BATMAN INC. ended in 2013 with Damian killed off and Grant Morrison departing the title. Morrison had always intended for Damian to die. However, Damian had proven to be a wildly popular character and the fans missed him and were not happy about his death. The writers of BATMAN AND ROBIN, BATMAN, DETECTIVE COMICS and DARK KNIGHT also seemed less-than-thrilled to have lost such a fun character.

In 2014 - 2015, Peter Tomasi's BATMAN AND ROBIN title presented the "Robin Rises" arc in which Damian's body is stolen for genetic material and Batman pursues his son's body as far as Apokalips, facing down Darkseid again. This time, Batman not only survives but reverses the deadly effect of Darkseid's technology and Damian is resurrected. Damian only stayed dead for 16 months and fans were very happy to have this pint sized homicidal Robin back in the mix.

One issue with a BATMAN AND SON movie adaptation: even if they hire a 10 year old to play Damian, that actor isn't going to stay 10 for the entire lifespan of the James Gunn DC movies. Something to think about.

The movie looks crazy expensive - essentially a Justice League sequel with seemingly as many action sequences (at least compared to Joss Whedon's version).  I assume that's why, no matter what Ezra Miller did, it was coming out. 

The movie does look interesting.  And as Gunn has said, it should reset the Snyderverse into the DCU.  I don't know if I totally understand how that can be the case - and how some people might be recast and some might not.  But as much as Ezra Miller makes me want this movie to fail, I'm very intrigued by it and am looking forward to seeing it.

Sooo... in THE FLASH movie, Michael Keaton will be returning as Batman. Michael Keaton is 71 years old. I remember some fans taking issue with Bruce Wayne played by a 43 year old Ben Affleck in BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title). Now we have a 71 year old Batman and judging from the FLASH trailer, Keaton's Batman is still leaping off rooftops, throwing batarangs, throwing high kicks and hard punches, and in general, running around like he's an Olympic athlete in his early 20s.

It's ridiculous, but... it actually seems fine to me, visually. We see Keaton in the batsuit declaring, "I'm Batman" -- and he is. He's not my favourite Batman, but he's earned the right to define and embody the character at any age. When Michael Keaton is in the batsuit, it doesn't seem to matter how old he is. All the action sequences are performed by stunt doubles whether human or animatronic or CG; I'm sure Keaton wasn't personally paragliding into the Batmobile even in his younger days.

Also -- it seems to me that the Batsuit and whatever sci-fi enhancements are accelerating and augmenting 71 year old Bruce Wayne's body make Keaton's actual age irrelevant. If Robert Downey Jr.'s character hadn't been killed off, we wouldn't take issue with him being Iron Man into his 90s; the Iron Man suit itself doesn't actually age. I guess the batsuit doesn't either.

Got to thinking about something regarding Gunn and the new cinematic DCU.

So Gunn has said that the movies take place across different time periods.  One movie may be early in a hero’s career (Superman) while another may be later (Batman / Damien).  We’re also getting a Booster Gold streaming series based on the Johns / Jurgens series.

What if Rip Hunter is going to be the Nick Fury of the DCU?  Recruiting heroes from certain points in their lives to construct the team he needs to fight a coming threat?  The Booster series would then be the connective tissue that holds the narrative together

In fact, I think for the Superman: Legacy movie, it would be fun to adapt the 90’s story “Time and Time Again”

While fighting one of Hunter’s Linear Men, an accident sends Superman bouncing around through time.  He gets a turn in the strong man roots of the character; he gets a turn in the WWII era of the character; and he gets two bites at the future Legion era (the last one ending in Superman’s failure to prevent the moon from exploding 1000 years from now).

I sometimes think that writing Superman is like taking the super soldier serum.

Superman tends to reflect each writer's image of what an admirable man would do with superpowers. That image is rarely consistent.

Even in, say, SMALLVILLE, we had a Clark Kent who seemed okay with killing freaks of the week in Season 1. He crushed that bug controlling classmate under a dumpster, killed the ice and fire manipulators. Yet, in Season 8, Clark acts like Oliver killing Lex Luthor with Lex's own bomb was some sort of moral crisis point. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar's Clark was prepared to kill in the heat of combat; Brian Peterson and Kelly Souders' Clark is appalled when vigilantes take life under any circumstances. And this is supposed to be the same character!

Ultimately, Gough & Millar's Superman is not the Peterson-Souders Superman who is not the Dean Cain Superman who is not -- you get the idea. But Superman is ultimately a reflection of what the individual creator considers to be exemplary. Your Superman reveals your guiding light. Your best or your worst.

Zack Snyder is someone who is very concerned with heroes establishing physical superiority over others. A Snyder hero has to prove that he's more brutal than those around him, so Snyder's Batman likes to burn batarang marks into villains' bodies and Snyder's Superman goes out of his way to leave scars and issue threats. Snyder's heroes feel the need to engage in exercises of ego.

I feel that Tyler Hoechlin's Superman might at times get angry enough to really damage someone non-fatally just to put a scare in them. Hoechlin's Superman threatens a soldier with heat vision in Season 1 of S&L ("Stand. Down.") and one wonders if this Superman might actually do it.

My personal vision of Superman does not engage in that kind of authoritative showboating to tell people who's boss. My vision of Superman is going to do what he can to contain and nullify a threat, but my Superman doesn't think of himself as someone who puts people in the ground.

There's this moment in the JLA/HITMAN series from notoriously profane writer Garth Ennis, a writer obsessed with bodily fluids and gore. Wonder Woman tells Superman that she dislikes how he keeps finding likable things about criminals. She dislikes how he'll have friendly conversations with people he's escorting to jail. She tells him that it's unbecoming of a warrior. Superman replies, "I'm not a warrior. I'm not a soldier of any kind. I'm just doing what I can to help. Isn't that enough?"

Zack Snyder's Superman is a warrior. But we're rid of him, thank goodness.

I cannot stress enough in the name of Wade Welles' lace-up boots that ireactions' personal preferences for Superman are not the consensus preferences of Sliders.tv.

Nice analysis.  I watched it last night and let me give you my thoughts.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

I'm not 100% sure of how I feel about the movie just yet.  Ezra Miller was good in the ways that they played both characters, but one thing has consistently bothered me.  Is Barry autistic?  I know he certainly seems to be on the spectrum, but are the writers simply unwilling to admit this?  Is Barry 2 also autistic but just not as outwardly obvious?  Or is that just because I'm fairly uneducated on this topic and it's obvious in both iterations?

It doesn't really matter, I suppose.  People on the spectrum don't have to advertise that they're on the spectrum, but I'm just a little surprised that it just hasn't ever been addressed at all.

One thing I did like is that Barry's personality is so different.  I think I experienced this myself - my father died at a young age, and my personality shifted significantly when it happened.  I used to be a loud (and pretty obnoxious) kid who was very outgoing and popular.  Afterwards, I became a more reserved, quiet, somewhat-reclusive kid.  Still the same person - just too wounded to be outgoing anymore.  I could see if there was a SQ21 movie, I might go back and keep my dad from dying and I'd have a much different personality.

From trailers and promotional leaks, I knew that Barry 2 was going to go bad somehow.  But we were two hours in and I didn't really want that to happen.  I liked Barry 2, and I didn't want to see him turn heel.  I thought "dark Flash" was a reasonable turn of events.  Barry has these new powers and has convinced himself that he can use them to do whatever he needs to do.  After not caring, he's invested himself in this scenario, and he's willing to do what it takes now.

Can Barry in the comics fight an army of kryptonians?  I know he's going out of his way to use his powers as effectively as possible and the kryptonians don't have any reason to suspect they're in any danger from any of the humans.  And when people are aware of him (the Space Giant, Zod, etc), it's usually a harder fight.  I'm basically the worst person to ask about physics, but even at super speed, wouldn't Barry punching a Kryptonian break his hand?

I thought the emotional climax was strong, and I think Miller handled it well.  I think Barry makes an irresponsible decision at the beginning, even after Batman tells him not to, and I think he ends up paying for it.  What was strange to me is that we never find out who actually killed Barry's mom.  I assumed it would be Dark Flash, but it seems to have been a random encounter?  Did the intruder only enter Barry's house because Henry left?  Did they simply enter a different house when Henry didn't leave?

I thought the opening scene was *bizarre* - I really don't understand what was supposed to be happening.  First off, that scenario was tailor-made for Barry.  I don't know why Alfred would've called Diana first.  Superman could've saved the building, but Diana couldn't have saved any of those children.  And having a bunch of babies falling out of a building was sorta insane to me.  I understand that they did it to show Barry's incredible speed and his quick thinking, but how was that the idea they went with?  And as much fun as it was to have Batman flying around in his blue suit (and it was super fun), I don't really understand what Batman was doing in there in the first place.  Barry could've done everything himself.

If it was me, I would've re-written most of that.  I'd give Barry a problem that only he could solve (being two places at once, essentially), and I would've had Batman fight Deathstroke or something.  Bring back a villain we'll *NEVER* see again, basically give Affleck a portion of his solo movie, and showcase Barry's powers.  Don't give us a nameless villain (Falcone's son?) and a meaningless chase.

Also did Affleck seem off as Bruce?  I don't know if he looked overly thin, but he looked off to me (both when he was in the suit and when he wasn't) and his voice seemed weird when he was just Bruce.  I know Affleck's been fighting demons, but I wasn't sure if that was why.

And I suppose Zack Snyder's Justice League isn't canon?  Because Barry went back in time for that, and everything was fine.

The cameo barrage was fun, but I felt like they really held back on it.  The only one that was really "fun" was the Nicholas Cage Superman (and that was very fun).  The rest were deepfakes or just archival videos.  Where was Bale Batman (or Joseph Gordon-Levitt Batman) fighting a Nolanverse Riddler or Penguin?  Where was Ryan Reynolds fighting Mark Strong's Sinestro?  Bring back Shaq as Steel!  Bring back Brendan Routh!  Bring back Tom Welling! 

I was also disappointed because we essentially had this same scene on Titans, and I think Titans did a better job with it.  But the Cage cameo was worth the price of admission.

Now the ending.  For an ending that was re-shot specifically after Gunn took over, I'm a bit baffled by it.  I assume I know the answer to this....Barry left the DCEU universe and ended up in this alternate DCEU universe with Clooney as Batman.  Aquaman 2 can take place either in this alternate universe or the original one - since Barry won't appear in that (I assume), then it doesn't really matter which.  And since Barry won't return at all, I assume, we're either going to get a brand new Flash in a brand new universe or we're going to get Ezra Miller as a new version of Barry.  Either way, the DCEU universe is gone and this new universe will either end right here or with Aquaman 2 (Blue Beetle pending)?

Which is baffling to me.  What's the point of a story like this if *that* is how the story ends?  The story has a nice emotional ending, but I'm shocked they didn't do some kind of post-credit scene where they show one of those colored globes being generated and have a new Superman pod landing.  "Superman will return in Superman: Legacy" some black text says.

Because, if anything, the DC landscape makes less sense after Flash than it did before.  We have a DCEU universe (with no Barry because he left), we have this new hybrid universe with DCEU Barry and George Clooney, and we have whatever Gunn is working on.  And it's either going to be left completely unspoken or they're going to have to shoehorn in an explanation. 

The weirdest thing about it to me is that Cyborg is referenced but doesn't appear.  Affleck appears.  Irons appears.  Gadot appears.  Cavill appears...sort of.  Mamoa appears.  That's the entire Justice League minus Cyborg.  I know Ray Fisher was fighting with WB, but didn't he return to film stuff for Zach Snyder's Justice League?

It was fun to see Keaton again (that's basically why I went to see it).  He was good.  Sorta like in No Way Home, I wish we'd spent more time with him to fill in some gaps.  We get to see the Joker laugh bag from Batman 89 and we get the Batmobile, but that's basically it.  Did he quit being Batman because he cleaned up Gotham?  Did something else happen?  Did he just retire?  Did he ever have a Bat-Family?

But it is weird that they did this Flashpoint story and didn't just go with the actual story.  I assume they would've if the Flash movie had been made as originally planned.  That's why they had Jeffrey Dean Morgan play Thomas Wayne instead of just some extra.  Batman being Thomas Wayne makes a lot more sense thematically.  But I can see why they went with Keaton, who is a better draw and probably better for story.

All in all, I think it was a solid movie.  A lot of fun.  Good performances.  As a movie in a vacuum, I think I liked a lot of it.  As a part of the DCEU or the DCU, it is a bit maddening, but I assume there's going to be a lot of that until Superman Legacy comes out.

I totally agree. There was the expectation that THE FLASH would set up the new James Gunn run of movies. This didn't happen. From what I can tell, the originally shot ending featured Supergirl and Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) meeting up with Barry after his father was released.

Then, when Henry Cavill agreed to return as Superman, there was the plan to reshoot the ending toe feature Sasha Calle's Supergirl and Henry Cavill as Clark and Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman and Keaton as Bruce to establish the new DC Universe with most of the original actors but a new/old Batman. This was never filmed. Gunn felt it didn't make sense to tease a Henry Cavill Superman movie or a new run of films with Michael Keaton or a new Wonder Woman movie as DC was giving Gunn a clean slate to step away from the Snyder series.

Furthermore, with Ezra Miller basically becoming a real life supervillain, it was unlikely THE FLASH would ever have a sequel. With the originally shot ending being a dead end and the new scripted ending being as much a dead end, Gunn decided to just have George Clooney show up as an off the wall, random casting gag, indicate that the Snyder DCEU is now merged with various other previously-seen timelines in previous DC TV shows and movies... and move on. I assume until told otherwise that AQUAMAN II is going to be canon to both the DCEU and the Gunnverse (unless Gunn recasts Aquaman).

A trailer for SUPERMAN: LEGACY would have been interesting.

My expectation was that the final scenes would feature the Gunn universe; that the Bruce Wayne who showed up at the end would be the actor playing Batman in BATMAN: THE BRAVE AND THE BOLD. However, this proved impossible because the role hadn't been cast yet. My expectation was also that the finale would have Ezra Miller's face morph into Grant Gustin's and then morph into John Wesley Shipp and then morph back into into a glowing version of Miller's indicating that reality was still in flux and that the Flash in the Gunnverse might not be Ezra Miller.

However, I can see the issue that Gunn would have had with this: the Synder-started DC Extended Universe still has one movie left, AQUAMAN II. If THE FLASH had changed into the new universe, AQUAMAN II might have been orphaned. As it stands, AQUAMAN II is now set in the DCEU minus Affleck plus Clooney and with other potential changes.

I think the wish was probably to use THE FLASH's time travel to create an in-continuity explanation for the Gunn reboot. But it looks like when they shot it, things were still in flux. Things are still in flux. Gal Gadot and Jason Momoa could conceivably remain Wonder Woman and Aquaman in the Gunnverse; those actors have really defined the theatrical versions of those characters and are still in a good place to do more film, so Gunn may want to see if it's possible to keep them in his new film slate. Margot Robbie remains Harley Quinn. However, Batman and Superman are going to be recast because (a) Ben Affleck is out (b) Gunn wants to start over with a young Superman and (c) Robert Pattinson's Batman is not well-suited to a shared superhero universe.

And since Gunn didn't have a clear idea of what actors would be in the Gunnverse, Gunn could not use THE FLASH to launch the Gunnverse, and Clooney was brought in as a gag rather than as a mission statement.

Warner Bros is an utter mess.  Just a mess.  Another new Superman and Lois.  Good God I could care less.  Gunn succeeds when he does strange, fringe stuff.

I really would not disagree with Grizzlor -- or anyone -- saying that DC is a mess. It's a fair statement. However, the mess isn't James Gunn's mess. It's not James Gunn's fault that the Flash is a real-life supervillain or that said supervillain turned out to be toxic to box office that led to THE FLASH crashing financially. I wasn't even planning on seeing THE FLASH in theatres because I wasn't going to put a dollar in Ezra Miller's pocket. Then I found out that WB was going to lose money on it and my money would end up with the movie theatre and paying down what was spent to make THE FLASH in the first place and I saw it in IMAX.

The mess: we have no idea whether the actors currently playing Wonder Woman and Aquaman will continue to do so. We at present have been told that three separate people will be Batman going forward (Clooney's appearance conveys that even if it's not true, we have Robert Pattinson, we have whoever will play Batman in BATMAN: THE BRAVE AND THE BOLD). We have a very ambitious slate of films that may or may not go the same route as the previous slate of ambitious films.

Will SUPERMAN: LEGACY clean up the mess? I hope so. But if Grizzlor says the DC situation is a mess, there is a lot of validity to that; I think to the average person, THE FLASH is probably baffling.

As for the new Clark Kent and Superman: I'm not familiar with David Corenswet. However, Rachel Brosnahan is an amazing choice for Lois Lane. Brosnahan first caught my eye in a briefly recurring role on THE BLACKLIST where she was magnetic, commanding, and mischievous and was killed off disappointingly quickly. Brosnahan came into her own on THE MARVELOUS MRS. MAISEL where she plays Midge, a cheery and winning housewife in the 1950s who in one terrible sequence discovers: her husband has destroyed their financial lives with overspending, her husband has abandoned all professional pursuits to pursue standup comedy and he's terrible at standup comedy, her husband is cheating on her. Midge drunkenly staggers onto the stage of the nightclub where her soon-to-be ex-husband bombed and as astonished to discover her rambling rants about her situation are a hit with the audience. Midge begins to pursue her career, develop her talent, create her art and build financial and emotional independence rather than be dependent on a man.

As Midge, Brosnahan demonstrates a humorous assertiveness, a self-confidence that is a hilarious combination of self-delusion and pluck, and she has a gift for expressing anger in a highly comedic way. Expressing anger in a highly comedic way is what made Teri Hatcher and Erica Durance so vivid as Lois; assertive self-confidence is what made Margot Kidder, Amy Adams and Bitsie Tulloch come alive in the role. Rachel Brosnahan has both. She has been playing Lois Lane all her life. Now it's official.

I finally saw Shazam 2.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
?

I wonder why Gal Gadot was in so many of these movies.  What was the post-Snyder, pre-Gunn plan?  With Batman cameoing in Aquaman 2, Batman cameoing in Batgirl, it seems like maybe Wonder Woman and Batman were going to be more involved?  But none of these movies are really building to anything.

I thought the movie was pretty fun.  Although I could see why it bombed so bad.