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

[sdp]

DC is just trying to be faithful to the comics by rebooting their universe every few months.

[AquaParade]

Ha!

Well, it's definitely a fallback plan, like Andrew said. But I find it to be a really savvy move, at least in theory. The general theme being that they didn't realize what they had right in front of them this whole time, and are now going to utilize that. It's fun to watch unfold.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the MCU multiverse being set up for a very similar reason. At some point, there will be a desire for Marvel movies that aren't directly connected to the shared universe, whether that desire comes from fans or filmmakers. The multiverse isn't just a one-and-done story device for Marvel, it's a pivot that will allow them to tell different types of stories.

[Galactus]

The MCU has already set up its own multiverse. Endgame established time travel doesn't alter the past but rather spin off a new alternate universe. They hinted at a 'proper' multiverse existing in a Spider-Man: Far From Home and the next Doctor Strange movie will be subtitled The Multiverse of Madness.

The multiverse as a concept is one that general audiences will struggle with if not done quite 'right' and even dedicated comic fans struggle with keeping all the alternate versions of their characters and history straight which is why it should be done with care not the hahazard way it seems the WB seem to be doing it to fix their broken extended universe.

[AquaParade]

It's a case-by-case basis, and I really haven't seen any "multiverse" projects, since the multiverse announcements, that seem haphazard to me.
They've utilized it by allowing Matt Reeve's Batman film to be it's own thing and by bringing in Michael Keaton's Batman to the Flash film/Snyder-verse.
Maybe Suicide Squad is confusing, but that seems like more like a case of them just steamrolling over something they aren't proud of, rather than a multiverse thing.

I don't know. Audiences generally don't get enough credit when it comes to what they will and won't understand. Doesn't seem like they've made any dangerous moves yet, but maybe I can be enlightened.

[Galactus]

If Justice League had been a success we'd have gotten Affleck's Batman movie and there would be zero talk of Matt Reeves or any other version set outside of the DCEU.

It's only because of the paradox of Wonder Woman (and later Aquaman) being successful that anyone at the WB even thought about carrying on the DCEU in any form in favour of movies set in their own continuity. Here they've latched the onto the multiverse concept as a way to do both as well as reboot the DCEU into something they hope will be more paletteble to movie goers.

I hope it works and I'm as excited as the next guy to see Keaton return as well as whatever other versions of established characters we'll inevitably see but I'd have more faith if it the multiverse concept had been baked into the DCEU early on rather than doing it now to fix a bunch of problems that never should have existed in the first place.

[AquaParade]

I don't disagree about the shaky path WB took to get to their current position. I just differ on the thought that it's a haphazard move. It seems pretty smart to me, and the projects underway are exciting to me.

I can understand the trepidation though, sure.

[TigerClaw]

The multiverse concept is just Warner Bros's excuse at not doing DC movies in a connected universe. That's one of there weakest elements. They are a studio that is director driven and they give each director creative control to do the movie they want. Sometimes a director they hire doesn't want to make a movie that's connected but rather a standalone movie. Which is what a lot of the current DC movies are gonna be.

They don't want to make movies that setup any big event like another Justice League. They just want standalone movies. If they do another Justice League. That will be a standalone movie on its own.

[AquaParade]

I mean, yeah, it's an excuse that allows them to entice incredible film makers to come on board and direct a movie for them. Filmmakers who would never have interest in playing in their shared universe sandbox. Although, that's still an option (along with the "C"-shaped bagels. Anyone?)
It's the best kind of excuse there is.

I know I have to breath deep and relax but sometimes I want to pull my hair out when people call DC's willingness to give their directors creative freedom a "weakness". Oof. It hurts.
Like, I get wanting to see your favorite characters high-five on screen, but is it really worth creative lockdown?
Okay, I'm being facetious - of course shared universes have their strength, but we will seriously miss out if every film is expected to be apart of that universe. It's certainly not a weakness to give filmmakers the option to play or along or do their own thing.

[TigerClaw]

Warner Bros just wants to make good movies. They aren't in it to please the fans and give them what they want. They give these directors to tell there own story by allowing them to pick any DC property they want.

They struck gold with Joker and you know for sure they will want another movie like Joker down the line.

[frank_one]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

They are a studio that is director driven and they give each director creative control to do the movie they want. Sometimes a director they hire doesn't want to make a movie that's connected but rather a standalone movie. Which is what a lot of the current DC movies are gonna be.

This is why I will always prefer WB rather than Disney.

[Galactus]

The whole idea that WB/DC prefers director driven movies to the homogeneous style of Disney/Marvel Studios is more than a little generous read of the situation.

Green Lantern was not only their attempt to start a shared cinematic universe ala Marvel but also to ape their style at the time. Had it worked subsequent movies would have also followed that tone and style.

Man of Steel was their second attempt to do what Marvel did but distinctly different. Had Batman v Superman worked we'd have also gotten more movies with a similar tone and visual style.

Letting people like Todd Philips do a standalone Joker movie was born out of the idea they had little else. Even then there was still talk of franchising it. Like I wouldn't be surprised if references to it ended up being shoe horned in to Matt Reeves Batman movie.

If the WB ever do get the DCEU back on track in some way you can bet it won't be some director driven enterprise.

[AquaParade]

Man of Steel wasn't trying to ape Marvel's style, it was trying to do the Nolan version of Batman, at least superficialy.

Todd Phillips' Joker was greenlit because it was cheap, but also because Todd had earned a lot of studio money with his Hangover franchise. Director loyalty.

Phillips's Joker certainly won't be incorporated into Reeves' Batman, no. There's really no reason to think that, especially with the multiverse push.

No, it's not an exaggeration to say that WB is more director-driven than Marvel. And that's okay. Kevin Feige is a great leader of an unprecedented success. But the directors certainly have less control. That's why Scott Derrickson was booted off Dr Strange.

WB's handling of Snyder on JL was an extreme situation.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

The multiverse concept is just Warner Bros's excuse at not doing DC movies in a connected universe.

It's their excuse so that whoever they hire to do new movies can "just do whatever" and it not matter. Or matter because "it's all part of the multiverse, dudes!" Which is pretty meaningless unless they intend to pump out movies like this one that will jump across the different universes, which is highly unlikely.

Lazy. Stupid.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

Thinking about it, Ben Affleck is the only Batman on film to be in supportive roles. It still sucks that he never got his own solo movie but ironically, I find it kind of a historic thing that's pretty interesting.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by LeotheLateBloomer

Thinking about it, Ben Affleck is the only Batman on film to be in supportive roles. It still sucks that he never got his own solo movie but ironically, I find it kind of a historic thing that's pretty interesting.

It's hard for me to deal with, because I know for a fact that I won't ever be able to be completely fair to any future Batman actors over this.

The best Batman can't even get his own solo movie because WB has its head up its ass and would rather constantly reboot and throw out the baby with the bathwater when nothing's even all that wrong.

That's an injustice so disheartening that at this point I try not to even think about it too much.

At least he can "settle" for accidentally being the guy to play the role in the most number of live-action movie projects (so far), for whatever that's worth. I doubt I'll ever get over it, though. I just know Me.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

I'm imagining the DCEU continuing without a Batman after this film though a Nightwing or Batgirl film would be interesting. God forbid a Beyond film literally happens.

[Leo656]

You deleted so much from your post that now I look like I'm just rambling for no reason instead of replying to your points, you madman. Whatever, I'm not deleting it, I worked too hard!

For future reference to all who read it: This post contains several points that seem to be for no reason whatsoever, but were initially typed as a reply to stuff the guy above me said before he changed his mind. "Thanks", pal.
-------

It was initially pitched/conceived to be Dick who died and not Jason, but that was already kind of being retconned behind the scenes even before the "implosion" of the DCEU. Even when they were gonna do two JL movies and Affleck was all-in on "The Batman", they'd shifted gears and were discussing a Nightwing movie as well, set in the same universe. So regardless of Zack's original intention and scripting of it being Dick who died, one can safely assume that if the plan for doing more movies had moved forward as intended, it would have been revealed as Jason who died and they were gonna pretend that was always the plan. Would have been easy enough to do.

Rumor has it that Affleck's Batman might get killed off in this Flash movie, and that being how they enticed Ben to come back since that was the cherry that originally got him to take the job in the first place, the idea that he'd be the first Batman to have an on-screen death. We'll see. I can see them doing that. It'll be easier for them to move forward without him if he "can't" return. At the very least it will provide some closure for some people that will allow them to no longer ask for or expect him to ever come back. I'unno, we'll see.

As for me, it'd be nice if I were able to keep an open mind, but I was promised something very special and I don't like being lied to. They got my dick hard for nothing. And he was SO GOOD in the role that he's ruined me for anyone else ever doing it. Like now when I read some of my favorite Batman stories in the comics and imagine them as movies, and it's like, "Well, Keaton couldn't do this one justice. Bale wouldn't be able to pull this one off." But Ben? He really is the Batman of my imagination brought to life more so than anyone else, and I never even expected that going in. I'm honestly not a huge fan of the guy in general, I like him in some things but not others. But he completely ruined me with his Batman. I read stuff like "Venom" and picture him in the role and it's like "Jesus."

So much good, and so much potential. All for naught, for fear of the wrath of the fickle nitwits at Entertainment Weekly. At least it was great while it lasted.

It does not help my ability to keep an open mind one bit, I confess, that they immediately jumped to the Twilight Guy and his scrawny arms, chicken neck and hockey-pad Batman cosplay. It is what it is. I know I'm not capable of being entirely fair but I can't see how anyone could see it as a step forward rather than a step backwards. When you go from "Perfect" to ANYTHING it's a step back.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by LeotheLateBloomer

I'm imagining the DCEU continuing without a Batman after this film though a Nightwing or Batgirl film would be interesting. God forbid a Beyond film literally happens.

All of the movies you mention were announced like 2 or 3 years ago. None are in active production.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

I already know that, there's a bunch of movie ideas that WB announced. I just think it'd be interesting for Nightwing or Batgirl to get their own films. At this point though, I wouldn't count on any of those.

Edit: Sorry Leo. Sometimes I do that out of habit.

[Leo656]

Doesn't seem like much of ANYTHING is "in active production" given the state of the world these days.

Most movies which were announced even last year look like "wishful thinking" in the current situation, and the entire industry is in a holding pattern waiting to hear if there's going to be a theater industry to even come back to, or if everything goes straight to Netflix from now on.

I don't think anything's "in active production" except for a few projects that were too far along to stop when the pandemic hit. Fact is, Hollywood isn't going to be able to keep operating as they were if there's not going to be any more movie theaters ever again. They NEEDED that ticket money. All those $200 million+ super-hero and Star Wars movies are gonna have to be made in a completely different fashion forevermore if streaming releases become the only option. The studios are already being very honest about the fact that they can't make money in streaming because everyone is a goddamn thief. Even Disney hasn't been shy about the fact that they can't survive on Disney+ alone.

If the theaters really do go extinct as everyone seems to be leaning towards - and if we're still "not allowed to go out in groups" 6 months from now then I don't see any other outcome, really - then nothing they had planned 6 months ago or even right now is gonna mean a goddamn thing. If they can't put them out in theaters, those movies aren't gonna get made. They're gonna have to instead put everything on pause while they figure out a way how to make the shiny blockbusters people expect/demand while making, like, $20 profit in return because nobody pays for streaming and everybody just pirates everything.

So yeah. Nothing of any real substance is gonna be "in active production" until sometime next year when they can figure out what the industry will look like going forward.

I predict ALL studios will be forced to release far fewer, much smaller films from now on. I mean, there's no business to come back to, they can't just dig themselves a hole. Doesn't matter what they had planned last year or even last month; none of that is relevant anymore. COVID changed everything.