DC/WB Confirm ''The Flash: Flashpoint'' Movie

[sdp]

Green Lantern felt like DC trying to rip-off Iron Man which didn't work for Hal Jordan. I still liked the movie, and wanted a sequel but because of the bad reception DC scrapped everything. It was clear that it was meant to jump start a DC movie universe but they went back to the drawing board.
We still should've gotten Ryan Reynolds as GL in the JL movie, people would've freaked out.

[Andrew NDB]

They could've course corrected satisfactorily with a GL 2. Too late now.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

They could've course corrected satisfactorily with a GL 2. Too late now.

Oh, definitely. There wasn't even much to "course-correct" to begin with. Just dial down the humor a shade.

They made Jordan a bit too much of a goof, but Hal Jordan and Barry Allen have the exact same problem when it comes to adapting them for mainstream media: Neither one of them HAS a personality of note to begin with, ergo making them sort of an "Aw, shucks" kind of goofball is the easiest way to get audiences to root for and relate to them. Plus, in either case that's who those actors are, anyway, so in the absence of their character having any personality you sort of just let the actor do what they feel, generally-speaking. It doesn't play well every time but I get why they do it.

The single biggest problem with the Green Lantern movie was simply that they did the villains in the wrong order. Well, actually "shooting without a script" was the BIGGEST problem, but based on the movie as it exists, it's very clear that the movie should have dealt with Sinestro mentoring Hal, Hal quickly realizing that Sinestro isn't all he's cracked up to be, and then a big Act 3 heel turn that ends up with it being Rogue Sinestro vs. the GL Corps. The sequel hook would be the same, Sinestro getting the yellow ring, and then the second movie would be full-fledged Yellow Ring Sinestro wreaking havoc on the entire Corps, with Hal as the last man standing and the one who takes him down. Maybe they execute Sinestro, as in the comics, and maybe Hal has to do it, begrudgingly. On his way out, Sinestro forewarns Hal that there are much worse things than him out there in the universe, and that the yellow ring is just a fraction of its power. Then in the THIRD movie, you do Parallax. You could still do all the backstory and foreshadowing during the first two movies, but you don't START with Parallax. That's "endgame" stuff.

The very idea of doing all that first, and saving Evil Sinestro for the second movie - which never ended up getting made - shows that they had a sense of misplaced priority, and also, didn't fully understand the material. GL fans, by and large, care way more about the Jordan vs. Sinestro, Student vs. Teacher stuff than they do about Parallax. Lots of GL fans don't even LIKE Parallax. I get wanting to go "big" right out of the gate - they probably skimmed Wikipedia like, "Who's the BIG Green Lantern villain?" and just went with Parallax based on that - but it was a mistake, in hindsight.

But yeah, you change those couple of things around, the whole thing might've worked. It's never been anywhere near as bad as people say it is. It was a pretty sincere attempt, and they got a lot more right than wrong. They just put the cart in front of the horse and it screwed the whole thing up.

You gotta wonder if having Hal turn bad and be possessed by Parallax was ever in the cards, like three or four movies in if they'd actually managed to make it a series. Part of me doubts if Reynolds could've pulled off that version of Hal, but then again he was pretty sinister in that Amityville remake, so maybe. Would've been neat to see.

[Andrew NDB]

And that thing had nothing to do with Parallax. It was like Cloud-actus in the Fantastic Four 2 movie.

[Leo656]

Not a great design, no.

To be fair, "Giant Space Bug" isn't a great Parallax design, either. And that sh*t's canon.

Creating "The Parallax Entity" as its own thing and not have it simply be a goofy name Jordan picked for himself after he went nuts was a decent retcon, in that it explain a lot of stuff about Hal's heel turn that didn't sit quite right with many people. But as the original "It" movie illustrated, creating a physical form for "The Sum Of All Fears" is... difficult.

Theoretically, such an entity wouldn't even have a physical form. It would manifest and exist within one's mind, and its "appearance" would be different depending on who/what it was possessing at the time, and what that individual was most afraid of. It wouldn't be a giant space cloud, nor a giant space grasshopper. It would be something a lot more abstract.

BUT, you can't turn that into something you can punch out for the sake of a movie. So, I get it. Not a great design, but was the comics' version all that much better? Eh. They were kind of against the wall on that one.

[NinjaPug]

That reminds me - there wasn't any mention of the GL series on HBO Max at all during the DC Fandome event was there?

[Leo656]

Man, there's a project I'm both intrigued and frightened by.

Huge, HUGE Guy Gardner fan. Like, possibly third-favorite DC character after Superman and Batman. So... somewhat intrigued by the first "real" live-action interpretation (that made-for-TV pilot from the mid-90s doesn't count).

However. All descriptions so far have me concerned that 1. The show is gonna be heavy on "woke sh*t" in general, and 2. Guy is basically just going to be the butt of everything, the "Toxic Straight White Male" that the show plans to demonize as everything wrong with society in general. I mean, they more or less have said as much.

That's bad, if true. Like really, really bad. To anyone who'd actually know, despite his outwardly self-serving nature Guy Gardner's innate heroism and nobility are unmatched by almost anyone in the entire DCU. He's ultimately as pure and selfless as they come - despite what even he himself would tell you. He once literally died, went to Hell, and fought his way back through sheer force of will (and a tiny little bit of help from Superman).

He comes off like an asshole, but then underneath it he's got a heart of gold; it's just sometimes he's got his head up his ass. But he always manages to pull it together when it counts.

...I'm not convinced that the people making this show "get" his character at all, based on their own description. And I don't want any sort of "Flanderized" portrayal. Much of my acceptance or enjoyment of this show will rest heavily on how they handle Guy's character. So far, it doesn't sound too good. They've already got FAKE Alan Scott in there, so they're already off to a bad start in my eyes.

Basically, anyone who never read "Guy Gardner: Reborn" or "Yesterday's Sins" should be forbidden by law from ever writing that character.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I swear, movies are the only form of entertainment where having a MORE educated opinion on the subject being adapted somehow makes your opinion "wrong". I'll never understand it. It's weird.

I am not sure how being familiar with source material makes you more "educated", when it comes to subject, considering that:

a) "source material" is not a singular thing, especially, when it comes to comic books, which have dozens of writers making them throughout multiple years;

b) it might not be writer / director priority to make something close to the source material in the first place. And in this case, all your familiarity with a "canon" amounts to nothing, since adaptation was never supposed to be close to it in the first place, yet the movie might be good by itself;

So all this talk about being more "educated about source material" is just "elitism" and nothing more.

I for one know Mortal Kombat canon like the back of my hand, but I won't say bad things about its adaptation, if movie changes something, but still ultimately a decent flick.

[Leo656]

All adaptations change things by design. It's pretty much impossible to adapt anything 1:1 across to a completely different medium. That's not the issue.

The issue is that there's a giant gulf between "making a few incidental changes but still remaining true to the spirit of the material and/or the original author's intent", which is what Good Adaptations do, and "Figuratively wiping one's ass with the original material", which is what Bad Adaptations do.

Yes, a movie can theoretically be a bad adaptation and yet still be an enjoyable experience on its own, for some people. That, again, isn't the issue.

The issue becomes confusing the Objective with the Subjective, when with regard to critiquing adaptations every single individual is going to have a different line of importance, and how much it affects their personal enjoyment. To wit, TO YOU, fidelity to the source material doesn't matter, so long as you're entertained. That's fine, so long as that same person understands and respects the fact that, to other people, fidelity IS important.

For a better understanding of what I mean, let's expand this beyond adaptations into another popular genre of film, the biopic, and/or movies which are "based on a true story". Again, every single person has a different "line" for such things, and in turn whether or not a movie is subjectively Good or Bad. I'm a huge Queen fan, but I haven't seen the "Bohemian Rhapsody" film and don't especially plan to anytime soon. I know it got rave reviews, I know people love it as its own thing... but see, I've seen a hundred Queen documentaries in my life, and I, personally, don't have it in me to watch a fictionalized account which constantly presents me with things I know are completely, patently false. The movie simply has only a passing coincidental connection with Reality, and to me, watching Fiction presented as Fact feels like my intelligence is being insulted. Millions of people are going to watch that movie, think they "know" the story of Queen or Freddie Mercury, and in truth they know nothing, because they were fed a pack of lies. It might be wrapped in an entertaining package, but it's still fake information. Which to me is irresponsible of a "biopic".

That bothers me, a lot. BUT. It might not bother you, or the next guy. That's fine. To You, it "just" might theoretically be a fun romp of a movie, and to Me, it's actively spreading misinformation in the name of "entertainment". And in turn, we can agree to disagree. You or They can watch the movie, and in turn, I don't have to.

Keep in mind, I'm just using that movie as an example, I don't know if you've seen it or what your opinion of it is. I'm just making a broad point, as usual. To me, that movie makes for a good example of what I'm trying to illustrate, because it's fairly recent and has both been called "great" and "trash" by different people, for different reasons, based on their own personal values and criteria, despite being generally well-liked. It can by definition be BOTH a "good movie" and a "bad biopic", and both of those statements can absolutely be true at once.

But on the flip side, I really like the movie "Braveheart", despite that movie being a complete and total fabrication. In which case, I'd say it's a really entertaining war film and a really terrible recreation of historical events. I'd recommend it to someone who hasn't seen it, but I'd also tell them flat-out not to try and write a term paper on it. I might even suggest that they skim Wikipedia afterwards just to get a better view of reality. Other people say it's just a bad movie altogether BECAUSE it's such a farce in a historical sense. I don't agree that it's a bad movie; I think it's a great movie AS a movie, which just happens to wipe its ass with history, which is unfortunate.

So as you can see, my meter clearly runs both ways on this kind of thing, situationally. Like anyone, the closer I am to the subject matter, the more I care. I'm not a scholar on Scottish War History, so Braveheart's many inaccuracies aren't as big a deal TO ME as they would be to someone who is. But on the flip side, I AM a big fan of comic books, so I care a lot more about fidelity in cases dealing with that particular subject matter. And people who aren't, don't. That's only natural.

But in either or any case, the whole "I was entertained, ergo Movie X is great, but movie Y did not tickle me, ergo Movie Y is trash" thing is the issue. You and I don't share the same values, nor do I share Andrew's values, nor does Aqua share my values, and so on; ergo, we're all going to be entertained by different things. What infuriates you might entertain me, and likewise the opposite. You might only care about being entertained by an adaptation or biopic, whereas I'd care more about "getting it right" and going from there. Just because you, personally, don't think fidelity matters at all to an adaptation doesn't mean everyone does or should feel the same way.

My personal view is, if one is only going to take the names and throw everything else away, I don't see any point at all in doing an "adaptation". I don't ever expect 1:1 fidelity in anything, but I also just don't see the point in making up your own thing and using someone else's IP to sell it to a wider audience, outside of greed and laziness. Obviously, not everyone shares that opinion. Some people love those X-Men movies, despite the fact even my dumb ass knows enough about X-Men to know those characters ain't the goddamn X-Men.

Specifically regarding the genre of comic book adaptations, though... the thing that's incredibly hard to explain to people who don't or won't read comics is that the movie versions are never, ever, EVER better than the books. And that's why people like myself care as much as we do. Regardless as to whether Batman '89 or The Dark Knight is someone's "greatest Batman movie ever", it doesn't come close to stories like "A Lonely Place of Dying" or "Batman: R.I.P." Seeing characters and stories that have actual nuance and depth constantly watered down for mass-consumption can be incredibly disheartening when you ARE a fan of the source material. Obviously, a person who doesn't know won't care; they can't be expected to care about things they have no knowledge of.

But to those who do know, and do care, it's like watching someone beat up your kid. Just because other people are laughing and having fun doesn't make it any more fun for you.
--------------------

I'll also never understand why people speak about "elitism" as if it's a bad thing. It's a wonderful thing. "Populism" is the disease, not Elitism. "Fight the real enemy!"

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leo656

The issue is that there's a giant gulf between "making a few incidental changes but still remaining true to the spirit of the material and/or the original author's intent", which is what Good Adaptations do, and "Figuratively wiping one's ass with the original material", which is what Bad Adaptations do.

"Bad adaptation" doesn't mean "bad work".

Originally Posted by Leo656

The issue becomes confusing the Objective with the Subjective, when with regard to critiquing adaptations every single individual is going to have a different line of importance, and how much it affects their personal enjoyment. To wit, TO YOU, fidelity to the source material doesn't matter, so long as you're entertained. That's fine, so long as that same person understands and respects the fact that, to other people, fidelity IS important.

Your opinion on how fidelity influences work is subjective.

Originally Posted by Leo656

That bothers me, a lot. BUT. It might not bother you, or the next guy. That's fine. To You, it "just" might theoretically be a fun romp of a movie, and to Me, it's actively spreading misinformation in the name of "entertainment". And in turn, we can agree to disagree. You or They can watch the movie, and in turn, I don't have to.

"Misinformation"?
Sorry, mate, but I can only recommend to unclench your ass cheeks about the issue.

Also, if we talk about fictional works, especially with dozens, if not hundreds writers, spread throughout almost a century, there is no such thing as "misinformation". If someone want to make a movie about Silver Age goofy Batman - is it a misinformation?

And who is to decide that movie, with its unique take on, say Superman, should have less weight than another version of Superman created for comic books?

Can not it be that creator of the movie, wants to do his own thing with the character instead of mindlessly copypasting something from a comic book?

Where is line between "misinformation" and "unique takes", when it comes to works about fictional characters, if original writers are not involved?

Wouldn't it mean that, by default all works that have not been created or overseen by original creators are basically nothing, but glorified fanfics, i.e. "misinformation"?

Which means your opinion is based on your personal opinion about "misinformation" as well and can not be considered more valuable than opinion of anyone else.

C'est la vie.

Originally Posted by Leo656

But in either or any case, the whole "I was entertained, ergo Movie X is great, but movie Y did not tickle me, ergo Movie Y is trash" thing is the issue. You and I don't share the same values, nor do I share Andrew's values, nor does Aqua share my values, and so on; ergo, we're all going to be entertained by different things. What infuriates you might entertain me, and likewise the opposite. You might only care about being entertained by an adaptation or biopic, whereas I'd care more about "getting it right" and going from there. Just because you, personally, don't think fidelity matters at all to an adaptation doesn't mean everyone does or should feel the same way.

Yes, my opinion about the movie is whether its not entertains me or not. And when I say "entertains" it doesn't mean, whether it makes me go "WOW!", "WHAT A ****ING EXPLOSION!", "WHAT AN AMAZING JOKE!", "LOL", "COOL!!!!111!!", e.t.c. I know it is hard for you to process that other might appreciate art on multiple levels, but try to imagine it.

For me movie is fun and entertaining, if it makes me feel like its worth my time. If its an action movie, I expect action, if its a comedy I expect to laugh and the like.

I enjoy a good story as well, and if I feel like the story is ****, than regardless of anything else, Id consider that movie bad. This my issue with both MCU conveyor productions and Snyder movies as well.
One takes incredibly safe and boring route, another goes all doom and gloom, like a teenager, who listens My Chemical Romance 24/7. Both approaches are ****.

And honestly I don't give a single ****, which makes a better "adaptation" and spreads less "misinformation". Its all about whether work is good on its own. And if its not, I don't give a ****, how much issues of Superman I need to read to understand Snyder's genius...especially, since I suspect no amount of comic books would be able to make appreciate his works.

Originally Posted by Leo656

My personal view is, if one is only going to take the names and throw everything else away, I don't see any point at all in doing an "adaptation". I don't ever expect 1:1 fidelity in anything, but I also just don't see the point in making up your own thing and using someone else's IP to sell it to a wider audience, outside of greed and laziness. Obviously, not everyone shares that opinion. Some people love those X-Men movies, despite the fact even my dumb ass knows enough about X-Men to know those characters ain't the goddamn X-Men.

It is a very loose method to determine value of the work.
In particular, Hugh Jackman is nothing like Wolverine in comic books, at least in appearance, yet, he manages to embody character, like no-one else. Is it misinformation? Is it a bad thing?

Originally Posted by Leo656

Regardless as to whether Batman '89 or The Dark Knight is someone's "greatest Batman movie ever", it doesn't come close to stories like "A Lonely Place of Dying" or "Batman: R.I.P." Seeing characters and stories that have actual nuance and depth constantly watered down for mass-consumption can be incredibly disheartening when you ARE a fan of the source material. Obviously, a person who doesn't know won't care; they can't be expected to care about things they have no knowledge of.

Now that's what I call "elitism": "unwashed masses don't know about things I do and I don't care, so I am gonna whine about them (but I won't lift a finger to learn how to make movies or cartoons and do a perfect adaptation myself)".
OK, mate.

Originally Posted by Leo656

I'll also never understand why people speak about "elitism" as if it's a bad thing. It's a wonderful thing. "Populism" is the disease, not Elitism. "Fight the real enemy!"

If your "elitism" is calling people stupid for not liking movies you do, because, you've read hundreds Superman comic books, it is, how to better put it, smells more like an "autism".

It is OK to have an opinion about fictional stuff, just don't **** on other people who have another opinion. It doesn't make them lesser, if they haven't read 10000 issues of SuperBat and not informed of INCREDIBLE WELATH OF CANON AND PERSONALITY those characters "posses" or whatever.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Specifically regarding the genre of comic book adaptations, though... the thing that's incredibly hard to explain to people who don't or won't read comics is that the movie versions are never, ever, EVER better than the books. And that's why people like myself care as much as we do. Regardless as to whether Batman '89 or The Dark Knight is someone's "greatest Batman movie ever", it doesn't come close to stories like "A Lonely Place of Dying" or "Batman: R.I.P." Seeing characters and stories that have actual nuance and depth constantly watered down for mass-consumption can be incredibly disheartening when you ARE a fan of the source material. Obviously, a person who doesn't know won't care; they can't be expected to care about things they have no knowledge of.

I don't see how you can make this argument. Honestly, I'd hesitate greatly to compare films and comics in the first place, because of them being drastically different mediums.

Sticking with Batman as an example, first of all, we have to acknowledge that there are way more Batman comics than there are movie adaptions.

Once we do that, the meter of quality changes greatly. For every terrible Batman movie, there are hundreds of dreadful Batman comics. Batman comics like "Batman R.I.P. or "A Lonely Place of Dying" don't come around every month or even year.

This whole discussion comes down to subjectivity, but I'd certainly argue that Batman Begins or The Dark Knight are easily superior to most Batman comics. And this coming from someone who adores the comics as much as anyone else, guaranteed.
Like, James Tynion has been on Batman for well over a year now. I wouldn't place any of his Batman comics over any Batman movies, aside from the obvious stinkers, like Batman & Robin.

One way in which I would agree with you, is when it comes to the direct-to-dvd adaptions, but those things are nothing more then cheaply animated, watered down versions of legendary comics. They aren't really adapting the material the same way a feature film would, it's more like they're just tracing it with crayons. They don't bring anything notably new to the table, other then the occasionally well done soundtrack or voice acting.

To circle back around, I want to note that I agree that the comics contain the pinnacle stories, for most of these characters. Maybe I'm biased because I love the medium so much, and it's the origin place for these characters, but I can't help but agree that comics is where you'll find the best Batman stories.
But again, there's a big difference between that and the idea that movies are never as good as the comics. Which Batman comic from the last decade is better than The Dark Knight, in any semi-objective sense?

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Sumac

It is OK to have an opinion about fictional stuff, just don't **** on other people who have another opinion.

And yet, the fact you've consistently proven entirely incapable of following this simple philosophy yourself completely invalidates your point while further proving mine.

Simply put, don't preach things you have no intention or ability to live up to. That quoted line is probably the single most "Pot, Meet Kettle" thing that's ever been posted on this forum, and that's really saying quite a lot.

No, seriously. You're right there in black and white saying "Do not do this thing" which is... like... 99% of what you do, in this section. Your entire gimmick has always been telling people "That thing you like is trash because *I* say so", and now you're trying to say you somehow DON'T do that, and furthermore, chastising ME for the same. Yikes.

I can't even. I have lost the ability to "even". I haven't been this confused since King Kong Bundy called me "fat".
---------------

Aqua, I can't reply to your post because I need to go fix a brain fuse. I tried to read it but I'm choking on Situational Irony too hard to formulate a response. Not your fault, that other one threw me for a loop. I appreciate your patience, if required I can probably get you a doctor's note. Just give me some time and I'll get back to you, probably.

[Andrew NDB]

Eh... maybe that trailer revealed more than many of us thought? I didn't even realize this when watching it, but that 2nd Flash in the trailer behind him is wearing Keaton's Batman Returns suit minus cowl, just spray-painted red with the lightning symbol. And then there's the shot of a dead Batman with blood around.

Does Keaton Batman die in this and an alternate Flash takes over for him? Is the "main Flash" in this even the same one from BvS and JL?

[Leo656]

They wouldn't kill Keaton's Batman. People would riot.

I mean, it'd be a bold choice, for sure. And there's a way it could work well story-wise, definitely.

But you need to remember, this is WB in full-on "We Just Want To Make That Marvel Money, Therefore We're Taking Zero Risks And Playing Things Super-Safe Because We Don't Want To Risk One Single Person Going On Reddit To Complain" Mode. This movie only EXISTS as an "apology" of sorts for making "bold choices" in their OTHER movies.

They absolutely would not bring back the guy some folks insist is still "the REAL Batman" just to kill him. The internet nerd outrage would make the reactions to BvS seem downright polite. Think "OMFG d00d they f*cking brought back the good Batman FINALLY just to kill him OMFG DC sucks WB sucks this movie f*cking sucks." Doesn't matter how they did it. People simply wouldn't stand for it. It could be the most well-written, well-staged death scene any super-hero movie ever had, and the general reaction would just be, "Well, they killed Keaton Batman, f*ck this movie. WB just wants to piss people off."

Point of fact, when that image of the Batman logo with blood on it came out, I saw plenty of comments online in the vein of, "If they kill Keaton's Batman in this movie, I swear to God I will never watch another DC movie again." Even if that's a minority of people, it's a vocal one, and it's heat WB doesn't need or want during their "rebuilding" period.

I mean, we'll see. I might be wrong, but I don't think I am, based on precedent. DC movie fans/commenters don't have a good track record for responding well to "bold choices". Keaton's Batman dying wouldn't be seen by the fans as a "heroic send-off for a beloved and iconic version of Batman," even if that's how it's meant to be taken. It would be seen as, "Oh, great, WB/DC is trolling us again. F*cking bullsh*t, f*ck them. They'll never learn."

I mean I personally would probably like it. I wouldn't have a problem with it, at least, depending. It's just... they're not in a position to do things like that. So I don't think they will. And if they do... yikes. Gonna be a rough weekend on the ol' internet.

Let's say that IF they go there, and IF they kill Keaton's Batman, and IF the fans react positively to that... then I'll stop smoking pot.

Spoiler:

For 12 hours.

I could see them doing like a fake-out, though. Like where Keaton's Batman (and some other characters) are all "killed"... and then when Barry "fixes time" at the end of the movie, everybody who was killed is alive again, safe and sound in their own timeline. THAT, I can see them doing. Keaton Batman getting killed and staying dead through the end credits, no, I doubt it.
----------------

As to whether Ezra's Flash is the same "Ezra's Flash" we already know... I doubt they know, either. No, seriously. Ask anyone working at WB which version of "Justice League" is canon, they all tell you different things. The suits say Whedon's version is canon, and then people like Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot are on the other side of the room saying "Everybody who MADE the movies, including the actors, writers, and directors, treats Snyder's version as canon and disregards Whedon's version." Nobody over there knows dick.

I doubt the movie will give much clarification, if any. Is this Ezra Miller Flash the same one from Snyder's BvS and JL, or rather from Whedon's JL? Or a third, brand-new Ezra Miller Flash (actually arguable, since a different actor is playing his Dad in this one; if you wanted to, you can say that's "proof" that this movie's universe is unrelated to ANY of the stuff we saw with Ezra's Flash before, and in turn a brand new timeline all its own)?

It's probably gonna just be a lot like "Is Ghostbusters II canon to Ghostbusters: Afterlife?" "If you want it to be, then sure." And nothing deeper than that.

Frankly, regardless of what they say, in my head it's the Ezra from Snyder's movies, because the Flash in Whedon's movie was a f*cking putz and Snyder's guy saved the universe.

[ZariusTwo]

I think I read somewhere they want Keaton to 'anchor' these multiverse movies as a Nick Fury type.

[AquaParade]

I dont think people would care if Keaton died. It's not like people are gearing up in anticipation of watching Keaton sit in a chair as old Bruce Wayne. Sure, a amall section of people would like him for Batman beyond, but most don't even know what that is.

Keaton coming back is a treat for older fans, not the promise of a franchise. If they do kill him, they'd probably give him an awesome send-off and I think people would accept it fine. There is no shortage of Batman and Keaton is 70.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

I dont think people would care if Keaton died. It's not like people are gearing up in anticipation of watching Keaton sit in a chair as old Bruce Wayne.

Okay, so I know not everyone is a "social media guy"... I'm barely on it myself.

But if you're on it AT ALL, then you'd know that Keaton as "Old Bruce Wayne" is the ONLY thing in this movie that anyone gives a single solitary f*ck about.

Now, I think that's stupid. Nothing against Michael Keaton specifically, or his Batman, or even bringing him in for a nostalgic "victory lap". What I don't like is how people so obstinately refuse to move on and let go of the past, to the point where the only thing anyone cares about in a "Flash" movie is AARP Batman. People are f*cking stupid. It's the same kind of stupidity that's gonna have Hugh Jackman playing Wolverine when he's wearing f*cking Depends, because people just can't let sh*t go from when they were 7. It annoys the ever-loving sh*t out of me.

BUT, I'm outvoted, and I don't make the rules.

Nobody - NO-F*CKING-BODY - cares about the Flash movie. Zero people, except anyone who's drawing a check from it. Nobody asked for it, and nobody's excited for it. Not AS a "Flash Movie".

The ONLY thing related to that movie that even ONE person cares about, is that Michael Keaton is playing Batman in it.

No matter how dumb that is, it's the way that it is. Ezra Miller isn't selling one goddamn ticket to that movie. Every single person is paying to see Keaton, and That's All.

You really think with WB's current reputation of "ruining" people's favorite DC heroes, that they'd try and pull some sh*t like killing off "The REAL Batman"? COME ON, bruh. They don't have anywhere near the goodwill with the audience it would require to even ATTEMPT a stunt like that. Maybe if people didn't generally hate like 8 or 9 out of their last dozen DC movies, they could do it and have people not complain. Or if they killed Keaton's Batman in a movie that was made BEFORE MoS and BvS came out, maybe it would go over.

All those ignorant twats on the internet ever say is, "WB/DC doesn't know how to present our favorite characters right." They're wrong, but it's what they think. For them to go ahead and make a movie where they kill "the only Batman anyone cares about", right now? That would be THE most tone-deaf thing they could possibly do. And no, people most assuredly wouldn't take it well.

You have entirely too much faith in people, and their ability to not whine loudly forever about things of no consequence. We live in a world where people determine whether a movie is "trash" or not by how many lines of spoken dialogue Superman gets, for God's sake. You expect these people to be rational?

If people are buying a ticket to see a Flash movie... and the ONLY reason they're buying that ticket is to see Keaton as Batman again... and you kill him... you are going to piss those people off. And in doing so, you cut your own neck.

In wrestling, we call this "killing the town". For example, you take a popular local "star", put him in a big match in his hometown, you sell the place out, everyone for miles around comes to see the Local Hero make good... and you have him lose, just because everyone expects him to win. You figure, "Hey, at least it was a surprise! People like surprises, right?" Except no, scientifically, they actually don't, and they especially don't like buying a ticket to see something and then getting the exact opposite of what they want/expect. So they all go home angry, nobody wants to buy a ticket again, and you can never run a show in that town again. You've now "killed the town".

Nobody ever kills a town on purpose. It happens because people who make the questionable creative choices figure, "F*ck it, they won't be THAT mad." Except.............

WB has been "killing the town" little by little for a while now, by underestimating just how much people will negatively overreact to their "bold choices". They have no goodwill left; the only DC franchise they had a sure bet with was Wonder Woman, and then the second one screwed that up, too, so now nobody likes them for ANYTHING. The only reason they even CALLED Michael Keaton, was because it's pretty much the last Hail Mary play they have left. "If THIS doesn't get us some goodwill..."

It would take a really... REALLY bold, self-assured, special kind of lunatic to break the Emergency Glass on Geriatric Batman, for the sole reason of selling tickets to a movie nobody wants... and then kill him. Like, you'd have to have fewer f*cks to give about public opinion than Snyder, even, and I'm not sure the person with THAT few f*cks to give even exists.

I agree that they probably aren't planning on using Keaton's Batman in anything significant after this. But to say "Nah, they might kill him, nobody will care"... WTF? Of COURSE they'd care, without him nobody's even gonna go SEE the f*cking thing!

It's not about "There's plenty of other Batmans." It's about how if you ask anyone buying a ticket to this movie, Keaton is most likely "THEIR Batman", and luring those people to the theater to watch their favorite guy die is... well...

Put it this way... how'd that work out for Luke Skywalker? Were all those people who paid to see their favorite movie hero again after four decades just plain happy to see him again at all? Were they glad he got to have a big heroic sendoff? Did they understand that "It's just how movies work, baby", and take the whole thing in stride, like mature adults with bigger problems?

Or are they STILL caterwauling about it and burning their Rey figures in effigy almost five f*cking years after the fact, because "They f*cked up my hero, maaaaaaan!"?

Look, if they wanna kill Keaton's Batman off, I'm personally fine with it. It would just take some giant brass balls to even THINK they could pull it off without inciting an Internet Riot. And I truly, TRULY don't think a bunch of people who are only going to see a movie because they had a guy's poster on their wall when they were 6 are mature enough to handle seeing him get killed off. They've already established having questionable priorities.

We'll see. Whether he dies or not? Let's say 50/50 at best. If they do it, do people collectively take it well? 100-to-1 odds. Maybe less than that, even.

Luke Skywalker, man. Luke Skywalker.

[ZariusTwo]

It's Affleck that's likely going to die

[AquaParade]

Yeah, I don't see the backlash happening, simply because Keaton has already had his time in the sun and doesnt have much left to do as Batman other then possibly a mentor role.

People are going to see Flash to see Keaton, sure. Myself included, in large part, but I'm not going to be upset if they kill him off. I'll only be upset if it's a crappy death.

Not saying Keaton will certainly die, I just don't imagine people leaving the theater mad if they give Keaton an awesome send-off.

The Luke Skywalker comparison is fair, but I think people were actually more upset with the way Luke came back, than the fact that he died.
Fans and Mark Hammil revolted against the treatment of his character, and then when he died without getting to even whip out a lightsaber, people were disappointed. As well as the fact that they killed off the main 3 before they could have a scene together, adding salt to the wound.
And for even more salt, it all happened in the most polarizing blockbuster in decades, due to a plethora of other creative choices.
I'd hesitate to use any Last Jedi comparisons because that film is in a league of it's own when it comes to backlash.

If you brought back Luke for an epic role, deserving of his time as the character, I don't think the backlash would have been the same. Fans wanted a heroic Luke, saving the day with swipes of a laser sword, but they were given a grumpy hermit with no epic action scenes, while we focused on two lost characters in a casino.


I guess either of us could be right, but that's my feeling.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

It's Affleck that's likely going to die

If he doesn't, I'll be shocked.

1. Snyder sold Affleck on the Batman gig in the first place with the promise of being the first live-action Batman to get a big triumphant death scene. Without that, he wasn't particularly interested. Many things have changed, but one has to figure that even in a completely different context, the basic idea holds intrigue for Affleck personally, and it's probably how they got him back for this movie after all the ballyhoo of the last several years. That was probably the big carrot. "C'mon back, we'll kill ya, like ya wanted."

2. MORE importantly, WB wants to bury everything except Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and to a lesser degree Shazam. This can't be stressed enough.

People liked ZSJL. They said, "We've changed our minds! Can we get those other Snyder JL movies, please?" WB said, "Go f*ck yourselves."

"Well, can we maybe get those stories that WOULD have been the movies, as like a comic book or something?"

"Go f*ck yourselves."

"Well... can we at least have some more Cavill Superman stuff?"

"Go f*ck yourselves."

"What about Affleck? Maybe something on HBO Max? C'mon..."

"What part of 'Go F*ck Yourselves' do you people not understand?!"

WB does NOT want one of the most "controversial" characters from the Snyder-verse running around in their "New And Improved" DCEU movies, reminding the audience of movies WB wants them to pretend never happened. It's way, way too late for people to suddenly start cheerleading for more Affleck Batman. WB isn't hearing those people Now; they're still only hearing the negative things those same exact people said 5 Years Ago.

This is it, for Affleck as Batman. 99.999999% chance he dies, and a 99.99999999% chance we never see him in the suit again unless it's a Halloween party at J-Lo's house.

If anything, the fact that people actually WANT him back as Batman, now, means WB won't ever do it. That's their goddamn M.O. Tell them you want soup, they give you salad and tell you to shut your f*cking mouth.
---------------
Aqua:
I did make a similar point about Luke Skywalker just yesterday - that it's not SO much that they killed him off, but rather, they made him a complete washout first and THEN killed him off, and that's what's honestly more damaging. So I hear you with that.

Problem is, I do also have to take SOME of what people say at face value. I do admittedly project a lot about "What people REALLY mean," and inarguably, I'm often right about most of it. But SOMETIMES, I have to at least pretend that the things people say out loud are true.

And plenty of people tell me, "I'm just pissed they killed Luke at all, I don't care how. Killing him was unforgivable. He was my hero!"

Point of fact, I'm currently engaged in a VERY spirited debate on another forum, Right This Minute, about whether or not it's EVER acceptable to kill off a heroic character, in ANY context. Believe it or not, a ton of people SINCERELY do not think it is acceptable. They don't care how well that death is presented; they only care that Their Guy got made to look bad, and they can't have that. Any character, any scenario, doesn't matter... "You DON'T kill the Good Guys, it's not acceptable." That's what I am being told.

I'm a bit shocked by this myself, but apparently, to a LOT more people than I'd ever expected, "killing" their favorite fictional character is invariably "disrespecting" both the character, and their fans. Many people, apparently, do not want their heroes to sweat at ALL, let alone bleed or die. And they get very, very upset about it.

Now, I personally think people like that are hyper-sensitives. BUT, I'm forced to accept what they say out loud as Truth and that they really mean it. At least to some degree.

And they SAY, they don't care HOW Luke was killed, they just didn't want to see him die. That in a movie full of his character being "abused", that was just the cherry.

Likewise, a lot of people are saying, "If they kill Keaton's Batman, I'm done with DC movies. I don't even care. You don't do that to My Guy."

Maybe they mean it, maybe they don't.

I am a VERY arrogant and dismissive person. But even I think it would be arrogant to dismiss ALL of that chatter as people spouting hot air. There's just too much of it. On some level they must feel that way, if they keep saying so.

So yeah, without projecting too much and only working with what people give me... I DON'T think people would take it well if they killed Keaton's Batman. Because I am literally seeing people say, "If they do this, I PROMISE not to take it well."

So again... We Shall See.