Justice League Real Talk - Where does the DCEU go from here? - Part 2

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah, but those aren't three distinct personas. "Real Clark" is Superman talking to his loved ones, the people who know his secret.

He's not imo. Because he can't fall apart in public. He can't express fear or doubt, show his affection for his loved ones. That he has to be Superman, wear the suit, lie about who he is, in and of itself means it can't be his true self imo.

 

[markjoedelonge]

I get you, but to me, if you’re describing something involving Jonathan Kent & Superman, and you’re using the phrase ‘in spite of his dad’ in any context, it means someone has missed the point hugely. The type of person Clark is, is formed by the things he is taught by his parents. MoS completely undercuts that, by essentially saying that the parent is wrong, and Kal-El knows the score completely independent of any influence, and without his father’s guidance.

Eurgh.

Haha yeah I get what you mean too. Ah well. It is what it is.

 

[Consona]

MoS completely undercuts that, by essentially saying that the parent is wrong, and Kal-El knows the score completely independent of any influence, and without his father’s guidance.

Eurgh.

His father was not wrong, look at the backlash Supes gets in BvS for even being here.

Kal-El was not independent of any influence, those dialogues with his mother and his father in both MoS and BvS gave him a lot of perspective over his existence, especially the mountain scene.

 

[titansupes]

He's not imo. Because he can't fall apart in public. He can't express fear or doubt, show his affection for his loved ones. That he has to be Superman, wear the suit, lie about who he is, in and of itself means it can't be his true self imo.

That's not him creating another disguise or fake personality, though-- That's just him on the job. There's nothing false about him e, he's just not bringing his crap to the office.

And the suit, assuming we're talking about a from Krypton or inspired by Kryptonian clothes, is just as much his clothes as the flannel is. And certainly much more him than the glasses could ever be.

 

[titansupes]

I don’t think you cram Superman into the distinct personalities that define Bruce. Mainly due the fact that Clark isn’t psychologically damaged like Batman. Nolan did such a damn good job with Batman because he loves exploring fractured personalities.

Clark’s ‘identities’ are more fluid, yeah? They inform and influence one another. I think it’s vital to make sure the Clark side is not forgotten in favour of the Kal-El side, but I entirely get your point that forcing a strong separation down those lines is wrong for the character. He’s more (and I hate this word, but I think it applies here) holistic in terms of character than that.

It’s possibly why I always find it fascinating when Batman and Superman are together, because it brings into sharp relief just how different they are as people because of their life experiences, but how similar they are despite those experiences.



Yes! That’s it exactly. I push back as hard as I can on anyone who thinks Clark Kent is dumb, because there’s so much rich storytelling to be had by both acknowledging and celebrating that aspect of Superman, and the issues it throws up for him.

Agreed. Which is another of my many disappointments with MoS-- Saving Clark Kent for the end of the movie was a great move. One I've been advocating for since BEFORE (the awful) Superman: Earth One did it. But he comes to the decision fairly out of the blue, and uses a poor justification for it ("where I can keep my ear to the ground, where no one will think twice when I run into danger"). Sure, that was his primary thing in the 30's, but his powers and the world's way/speed of communicating have developed so much since then.

In the ideal world, he chooses to don the glasses disguise because practically, he can use his writing to influence people in a way Superman can't, and along side Lois, fight wrong-doing in a way he can't. Plus, writing's one of the few professions his super-brain doesn't give him a HUGE advantage in, like sport or science or whatever would (he doesn't become a cop or fireman because, why bother? He can save countless more lives in the cape). He also uses him to reconnect to the human perspective he might otherwise lose, he does it to take a break, he does it to spend more time with his friends in a way where they're treating him on their level, and-- most importantly-- He just loves it. He loves it, even though he can never truly BE it again.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That's not him creating another disguise or fake personality, though-- That's just him on the job. There's nothing false about him e, he's just not bringing his crap to the office.

And the suit, assuming we're talking about a from Krypton or inspired by Kryptonian clothes, is just as much his clothes as the flannel is. And certainly much more him than the glasses could ever be.

And people have their work selves and their real selves. That is like the entire point. t:

 

[Lighthouse]

His father was not wrong, look at the backlash Supes gets in BvS for even being here.

Kal-El was not independent of any influence, those dialogues with his mother and his father in both MoS and BvS gave him a lot of perspective over his existence, especially the mountain scene.

Yeah. He's getting backlash for just "being here". Sure.

 

[titansupes]

And people have their work selves and their real selves. That is like the entire point. t:

Superman on the job doesn't equal a tri-identity thing, though. Do you consider you at work and entirely different thing than you at home?

 

[Vaibow]

Superman on the job doesn't equal a tri-identity thing, though. Do you consider you at work and entirely different thing than you at home?

You're kinda being pedantic - at work one would hope you are professional - like a cop as an example - i don't need to tell you a cop, when in the uniform is a different person so when you think of the 3 aspects of Clark - a farm boy in the city, trying to be low key and then wearing a symbol of hope where he knows his every move will be scrutinized - yeah, i think its fair to say there are 3 distinct personality traits. smallville, metropolis and krypton.

 

[titansupes]

You're kinda being pedantic

I totally am. I didn't used to be, but I guess years of the people in charge just straight-up getting him wrong has made me more and more picky. So I'm feel the need to be really specific now.

- at work one would hope you are professional - like a cop as an example - i don't need to tell you a cop, when in the uniform is a different person so when you think of the 3 aspects of Clark - a farm boy in the city, trying to be low key and then wearing a symbol of hope where he knows his every move will be scrutinized - yeah, i think its fair to say there are 3 distinct personality traits. smallville, metropolis and krypton.

As far as it goes here (and to sum up because we're getting nowhere), while I think we agree in principle, I don't think there's enough difference in Kal in the cape vs Kal in flannel to warrant calling it three identities.

Oddly enough, JL actually got this... right! I was very surprised. They even let him have his Superman hairstyle on the farm as a visual signifier, which is the right way to go since it's meant to be the way his hair naturally falls (as opposed to slicking it over when he puts on the cape).

So if they keep all that up in the sequel/reboot/whatever happens, they'll be on the right track.

 

[Vaibow]

I totally am. I didn't used to be, but I guess years of the people in charge just straight-up getting him wrong has made me more and more picky. So I'm feel the need to be really specific now.



As far as it goes here (and to sum up because we're getting nowhere), while I think we agree in principle, I don't think there's enough difference in Kal in the cape vs Kal in flannel to warrant calling it three identities.

Oddly enough, JL actually got this... right! I was very surprised. They even let him have his Superman hairstyle on the farm as a visual signifier, which is the right way to go since it's meant to be the way his hair naturally falls (as opposed to slicking it over when he puts on the cape).

So if they keep all that up in the sequel/reboot/whatever happens, they'll be on the right track.

Nicely put! I do agree, 3 distinct characters is pushing it, it's obviously two, but you can still have some fun with the man in the cape the on duty clark as it were.

I kinda wish WB would listen to fans, brain storm a DC focus group - just because a director calls the shots, it doesn't mean 'their' vision is best.

i guess when it comes to superman, i take it personally when he is mistreated - for what it's worth, i rewatched the lois and clark pilot last night and for me, they totally nailed the big boy scout aspect of clark. Listening to his folks, not giving a damn about being cool with the suit - being proud to say his mother made it for him - embracing the disguise, who he was. That was pretty well done.

 

[Venom'sDad]

nvm

 

[The Guard]

They've pretty much already started course correcting, and much of it worked. There were good reactions to many of the tonal changes and increased fun factor in JUSTICE LEAGUE. They need to continue to improve, and they need to find a way to better affect/control the media narrative about this superhero universe.

While it may have been fast-tracked if JUSTICE LEAGUE was a smash, JUSTICE LEAGUE 2 wasn’t going to happen for a while anyway. They won’t table the universe just because this movie didn't make money. They will, in all liklihood, try to build the brand back up, and then maybe try a Justice League story again after several more solo films (Aquaman, The Flash, Shazam, Batman)

Wonder Woman is an audience favorite. If AQUAMAN does well and people respond to Flash, we could easily see a JUSTICE LEAGUE 2 where they take center stage. If AQUAMAN is well received, there’s a solid basis, as JUSTICE LEAGUE 2 would almost certainly feature more Aquaman. If JL got a Wonder Woman bump, it stands to reason that it would also get an Aquaman one.

The team up movies won’t be the endgame with this universe, and they shouldn’t be. WB’s goal, aside from AVENGERS money, was always to launch multiple solo franchises WITH Justice League. Flash. Aquaman. Cyborg. That’s where the major franchise potential is. The team up films would be seen as “getting the band back together” for major events. There’s nothing wrong with that approach, as that’s how it works in the comics, and that’s what Marvel is essentially doing as well.

They wouldn't even have to call the movies JUSTICE LEAGUE if they didn't want to. It could be CRISIS ON (insert crisis), or named after any number of relevant events.

FLASHPOINT is probably going to be retooled, but it sounds like it hadn’t exactly crystallized anyway. I think they’ll still move ahead with some form of Flash solo, especially since AQUAMAN seems to be going well. I expect that Cyborg will still be involved in that. CYBORG film may be a longshot at this point, but we could see if after FLASHPOINT if the character is well received there.

THE BATMAN is going to happen, in one form or other.

SHAZAM is still happening.

A Superman solo film, which apparently wasn't the priority anyway, may be off the table at this point, or it may not be. The best bet for now is that Henry Cavill's Superman functions as part of the “connective tissue” for the DCU and continues to win back the audience. He could show up in various films in a supporting or cameo role, and if he eventually leaves, I think it could even be ok if Superman sort of inspires the next Superman in SHAZAM and then exits the picture, leaving behind a heroic “legacy”.

Shazam has been in the comics, and could easily be here, Superman’s replacement in the League pantheon

Darkseid can still happen, though probably not for a while. There’s no reason Darkseid cannot be either behind or involved in the creation of the Legion of Doom.

 

[markjoedelonge]

Fantastic post, Guard.

 

[InJustice]

True, but personally I've always felt that Clark choosing to trust humanity in spite of his dad's speech spoke volumes about the type of person he is, rather than having his dad spell out the values for him and the audience.

Personally it's this kind of writing in the script that makes me look back at MoS unfavourably compared to loving it back in June 2013. Primarily because it's inefficient writing: what was the point of introducing that kind of conflict and calling Clark's desire to save people into question if the end result was always going to be the same? There's no purpose as far as character growth is concerned. It's why I felt the flashback to him wearing the cape made Pa Kent's "teachings" a complete waste of time and character.

Additionally, it strays away from the usual optimism and idealism in a Superman story in favour of cynicism, and this is more significant now that I realized in the past, because it has to do with character branding. Cynicism works in Batman because we see someone who was affected by a broken justice system and as a result, takes matters into his own hands. I understand growing Superman into a "real-world" context, but you can accomplish this without sacrificing the branding that made these characters so iconic in the first place. That's where MOS and BVS becomes problematic for me in terms of tone and balance (or lack thereof).

 

[CoolHaircut]

I really really hope they prioritize a MOS 2 movie. I want so bad to see that, along with JL 2 and Flashpoint.

 

[markjoedelonge]

Personally it's this kind of writing in the script that makes me look back at MoS unfavourably compared to loving it back in June 2013. Primarily because it's inefficient writing: what was the point of introducing that kind of conflict and calling Clark's desire to save people into question if the end result was always going to be the same? There's no purpose as far as character growth is concerned. It's why I felt the flashback to him wearing the cape made Pa Kent's "teachings" a complete waste of time and character.

Additionally, it strays away from the usual optimism and idealism in a Superman story in favour of cynicism, and this is more significant now that I realized in the past, because it has to do with character branding. Cynicism works in Batman because we see someone who was affected by a broken justice system and as a result, takes matters into his own hands. I understand growing Superman into a "real-world" context, but you can accomplish this without sacrificing the branding that made these characters so iconic in the first place. That's where MOS and BVS becomes problematic for me in terms of tone and balance (or lack thereof).

The optimism and idealism is still being exhibited by Clark. It's just that the world MOS is set in is very cynical. He chose for himself to protect the human race, instead of being told by his father to do so. This goes back to what Jor-El also said about children being able to choose their roles in life instead of being selected to fill pre-ordained roles. Personally I feel that's a much stronger message to send. In spite of people saying otherwise, you can always choose to do what you feel is right.

I understand if you disagree and I can also see what you mean, but personally, that's how I felt about "Man of Steel". It was just as inspiring to me as "Wonder Woman".

 

[routhman]

Personally it's this kind of writing in the script that makes me look back at MoS unfavourably compared to loving it back in June 2013. Primarily because it's inefficient writing: what was the point of introducing that kind of conflict and calling Clark's desire to save people into question if the end result was always going to be the same? There's no purpose as far as character growth is concerned. It's why I felt the flashback to him wearing the cape made Pa Kent's "teachings" a complete waste of time and character.

Additionally, it strays away from the usual optimism and idealism in a Superman story in favour of cynicism, and this is more significant now that I realized in the past, because it has to do with character branding. Cynicism works in Batman because we see someone who was affected by a broken justice system and as a result, takes matters into his own hands. I understand growing Superman into a "real-world" context, but you can accomplish this without sacrificing the branding that made these characters so iconic in the first place. That's where MOS and BVS becomes problematic for me in terms of tone and balance (or lack thereof).

First, Clark’s desire to save people was *never*—not once—called into question.

Second, the film and its characters are not cynical at all. It’s an honest moral dilemma: Is the world ready to learn about the existence of alien life? Could the world’s reaction to that revelation be so poor that the world ends up in worse shape even with all the positive things Superman brings to the world? If Clark were a real person, he would have to answer those questions for himself before choosing to reveal himself, and honestly it’s impossible to know the answer. It would be an impossibly difficult dilemma to resolve, and we see him struggle with that dilemma, and that adds gravity and import and a sense of earnestness to the film.

Costner’s scenes were not for nothing. His scenes were critical in establishing the difficulty of that dilemma faced by Clark. It wasn’t unearned cynicism when Pa said, “I don’t know. Maybe.” It was the voice of a Smallville farmer who truly didn’t know if the world could handle someone like Clark existing. And honestly, if someone like Superman were to appear tomorrow, I think that person would fracture society; I think the world would be terrified and angry, and I think you’d see mass riots, as the world started to question their own religious beliefs. It would trigger a momentous period of evolution and revolution of thought. For **** sake, it could lead to world war when major world powers frantically disagree on how Superman should be handled. I think it’s intellectually dishonest to call that outlook cynical. It’s an inherently difficult dilemma that the filmmakers could choose to ignore, but that doesn’t mean the dilemma wouldn’t exist in real life. Is that what you’d prefer? For that consideration to be ignored as if it didn’t have to be taken into account?

I see confronting that dilemma as absolutely necessary. Anything less is cheating the story of a natural opportunity for depth and weight and verisimilitude.

In having Pa Kent establish that dilemma, the film allows young Clark to demonstrate his innate need to use his powers to help people, and how that need transcends such considerations (school bus scene, and the consequences of that scene); and it establishes it as an inherently difficult and brave and decent and inspiring act for Clark to go public as Superman when he finally does.

 

[Milkman95]

^Spot On

 

[Skrilla31]

First, Clark’s desire to save people was *never*—not once—called into question.

Second, the film and its characters are not cynical at all. It’s an honest moral dilemma: Is the world ready to learn about the existence of alien life? Could the world’s reaction to that revelation be so poor that the world ends up in worse shape even with all the positive things Superman brings to the world? If Clark were a real person, he would have to answer those questions for himself before choosing to reveal himself, and honestly it’s impossible to know the answer. It would be an impossibly difficult dilemma to resolve, and we see him struggle with that dilemma, and that adds gravity and import and a sense of earnestness to the film.

Costner’s scenes were not for nothing. His scenes were critical in establishing the difficulty of that dilemma faced by Clark. It wasn’t unearned cynicism when Pa said, “I don’t know. Maybe.” It was the voice of a Smallville farmer who truly didn’t know if the world could handle someone like Clark existing. And honestly, if someone like Superman were to appear tomorrow, I think that person would fracture society; I think the world would be terrified and angry, and I think you’d see mass riots, as the world started to question their own religious beliefs. It would trigger a momentous period of evolution and revolution of thought. For **** sake, it could lead to world war when major world powers frantically disagree on how Superman should be handled. I think it’s intellectually dishonest to call that outlook cynical. It’s an inherently difficult dilemma that the filmmakers could choose to ignore, but that doesn’t mean the dilemma wouldn’t exist in real life. Is that what you’d prefer? For that consideration to be ignored as if it didn’t have to be taken into account?

I see confronting that dilemma as absolutely necessary. Anything less is cheating the story of a natural opportunity for depth and weight and verisimilitude.

In having Pa Kent establish that dilemma, the film allows young Clark to demonstrate his innate need to use his powers to help people, and how that need transcends such considerations (school bus scene, and the consequences of that scene); and it establishes it as an inherently difficult and brave and decent and inspiring act for Clark to go public as Superman when he finally does.

The problem is Pa Kent keeps telling Clark that one day he's going to have to make a choice. Either he remains hidden or he shows the world what he can do.

And then when Clark finally makes that choice, Pa Kent completely undermines it and sacrifices his own life. He denies Clark of that choice.

 

[The Guard]

Additionally, it strays away from the usual optimism and idealism in a Superman story in favour of cynicism, and this is more significant now that I realized in the past, because it has to do with character branding. Cynicism works in Batman because we see someone who was affected by a broken justice system and as a result, takes matters into his own hands. I understand growing Superman into a "real-world" context, but you can accomplish this without sacrificing the branding that made these characters so iconic in the first place. That's where MOS and BVS becomes problematic for me in terms of tone and balance (or lack thereof).

Cynicism can work in every character, and has been part of the Superman mythos for a long time, even if Superman himself chooses not to be cynical in most versions of the character.

If you look at the structure of many narratives, somewhere along the line, usually toward the end of the second act in film, there is a "loss of hope" in the story, and the protagonist faces the central conflict and overcomes either cynicism or whatever is creating the feelng of a loss of hope. We see the same thing structurally in MAN OF STEEL and in a much more intense way in BATMAN VS SUPERMAN.

The problem is Pa Kent keeps telling Clark that one day he's going to have to make a choice. Either he remains hidden or he shows the world what he can do.

And then when Clark finally makes that choice, Pa Kent completely undermines it and sacrifices his own life. He denies Clark of that choice.

Clark has not made the choice prior to Pa Kent sacrificing his life. And actually, that's not the only choice Pa Kent tells Clark he will have to make, either:

"You just have to decide what kind of a man you want to grow up to be, Clark; because whoever that man is, good character or bad, he's... He's gonna change the world.

By sacrificing himself, Jonathan believes that he is giving Clark the opportunity to make these important choices when Clark and the world are ready. Based on the events of the film, we are shown that he isn't yet. Or Clark would not have let his father make the choice for him.

We're getting off topic, though the idea that hope can arise from cynicism (darkness) has been part of the DCEU since MAN OF STEEL, has featured in multiple films, and will likely be a key component moving forward in some fashion. It's pretty much the central theme they've built this entire franchise around, and the end of BVS, WONDER WOMAN and JUSTICE LEAGUE feature hope emerging out of all that darkness.

 

[Vaibow]

I had the thought of an amazing missed opportunity - MOS post credit sequence, a box, like a vault, floating through space, with what sounds like pounding coming from inside - a dent is almost made, shape of a horn, inside, its a raging, unsettled beast in darkness, obviously restraint and growling - its scary... with a small comic style yellow box with black ink with the word ...doomsday is coming. Then MOS2 could have an updated version of it hurtling towards earth, spinning, crash landing in the middle of a forest - the camera cuts back, scorch marks around the trees, it cuts back again and this time decades have passed, vegetation grow back and vines over it, but it still pounds away inside, it cuts back again and the forest has grown back around it, cuts back again to see a beautiful green forest, cut to inside and darkness, save for the crack and light breaking through, hitting a bandaged face.

 

[InJustice]

First, Clark’s desire to save people was *never*—not once—called into question.

Second, the film and its characters are not cynical at all. It’s an honest moral dilemma: Is the world ready to learn about the existence of alien life? Could the world’s reaction to that revelation be so poor that the world ends up in worse shape even with all the positive things Superman brings to the world? If Clark were a real person, he would have to answer those questions for himself before choosing to reveal himself, and honestly it’s impossible to know the answer. It would be an impossibly difficult dilemma to resolve, and we see him struggle with that dilemma, and that adds gravity and import and a sense of earnestness to the film.

Costner’s scenes were not for nothing. His scenes were critical in establishing the difficulty of that dilemma faced by Clark. It wasn’t unearned cynicism when Pa said, “I don’t know. Maybe.” It was the voice of a Smallville farmer who truly didn’t know if the world could handle someone like Clark existing. And honestly, if someone like Superman were to appear tomorrow, I think that person would fracture society; I think the world would be terrified and angry, and I think you’d see mass riots, as the world started to question their own religious beliefs. It would trigger a momentous period of evolution and revolution of thought. For **** sake, it could lead to world war when major world powers frantically disagree on how Superman should be handled. I think it’s intellectually dishonest to call that outlook cynical. It’s an inherently difficult dilemma that the filmmakers could choose to ignore, but that doesn’t mean the dilemma wouldn’t exist in real life. Is that what you’d prefer? For that consideration to be ignored as if it didn’t have to be taken into account?

I see confronting that dilemma as absolutely necessary. Anything less is cheating the story of a natural opportunity for depth and weight and verisimilitude.

In having Pa Kent establish that dilemma, the film allows young Clark to demonstrate his innate need to use his powers to help people, and how that need transcends such considerations (school bus scene, and the consequences of that scene); and it establishes it as an inherently difficult and brave and decent and inspiring act for Clark to go public as Superman when he finally does.

It was called into question the moment they introduced the "conflict" between him and Pa Kent, where Clark is clearly thinking about the lives of kids in the bus vs. Pa Kent thinking about Clark's safety (as far as not wanting Clark to be robbed of his freedom/dehumanized by government agencies because of his powers). The problem for me is that it's very clunky in the grand narrative. The reason why I say his scenes are a complete waste of time is because throughout Man of Steel, he tries to get Clark to think about the consequences and almost seems to veer him towards not using his powers (tornado scene, arguing about the bus), and yet, that doesn't stop Clark from doing what he can to save people (oil rig incident, his "ghost" flashbacks where he helps people in small towns and then disappears). And yet, he tells Clark that he has a choice. The writing in that regard is very clunky and almost indecisive, you can't steer someone down a certain path and then tell them that they have a decision to make when you’ve essentially made that decision for them.

The film is cynical (though I will say that the bulk of the cynicism is from BvS and the way they handle Superman’s arc), the first lesson that Clark learns is that it’s better to hide himself from public view than take the risk of using his powers to help people. Which in turn, contributes to his untrusting nature when he meets the priest in the midpoint of the film. I understand the moral dilemmas that you mentioned, but I think there are ways to answer these questions without having Superman be given a Batman kind of mindset (not trusting of people, etc). That’s why I mentioned the whole branding aspect, because you still need your heroes to differentiate themselves from one another.

Cynicism can work in every character, and has been part of the Superman mythos for a long time, even if Superman himself chooses not to be cynical in most versions of the character.

If you look at the structure of many narratives, somewhere along the line, usually toward the end of the second act in film, there is a "loss of hope" in the story, and the protagonist faces the central conflict and overcomes either cynicism or whatever is creating the feelng of a loss of hope. We see the same thing structurally in MAN OF STEEL and in a much more intense way in BATMAN VS SUPERMAN.

What you mentioned in the bold is precisely what I’m getting at. The inclusion of cynicism is fine for progressing the narrative, but transforming the character to become cynical (when it isn’t natural to its arc, for instance, the alternate timeline episode in JL where Superman lobotomizes Lex and becomes a dictator-esque hero in the Justice Lords is one such instance where I understand the need to shift character development) is where I take an issue, primarily because of their development/arcs. I used to argue against the idea that superheroes should be tied to the kinds of iconic character traits because of how limiting it is, but I’ve realized that these traits and mannerisms is what allows them to stand out compared to the rest of their contemporaries.

As for your example, yes the loss-of-hope structure is common but is usually devised as a hurdle for the character to overcome. A whole separate argument I have is that BVS do a terrible job building the frameworks for how the hero overcomes loss of hope: it just happens because it has to happen (particularly in the case of BVS as MOS didn’t have sufficient time to explore that). I wasn’t a fan of how it was explored in Batman v Superman.

 

[ManWithNoName18]

New Variety article on JL fallout
http://variety.com/2017/film/news/dc-films-justice-league-1202632214/

- Jon Berg is out, and will be moving to another WB division, WB is currently looking for his replacement
- Johns is still in
-No current plans on a separate "DC studios"
-Snyder is not coming back to direct JL 2 like originally planned or any other DC movie.
-They believe Affleck in Reeve's Batman is unlikely

 

[Maze]

While Ben Affleck is expected to appear as Batman in a standalone Flash movie, it is highly unlikely he will don the cape and owl in Matt Reeves’ planned standalone Batman movie. The director is said to want to cast the role with fresh talent, according to sources.

Warner Bros. does believe that “Justice League” succeeded in one importantly respect: it effectively introduced Flash (a quippy speedster played by Ezra Miller) and Aquaman (the king of Atlantis, portrayed by Jason Momoa). A solo “Aquaman” is due out in 2018 and Warners is still developing a standalone Flash adventure. Going forward, Warner Bros. is planning a sequel to “Wonder Woman” that’s believed to be set in the Cold War, and New Line has greenlit a “Shazaam” feature.

...