The All Things Flash Thread. - Part 2

[Vlyse]

I just got back, and I really, really enjoyed this. I'm baffled that it's flopping this hard but also, it's nostalgia for Snyder's movies. General Zod in this basically is the poster for "Thanks, but no thanks, DC." We can see now exactly how #RestoreTheSnyderVerse would have performed theatrically. The Flash's performance is a rejection of Snyder's universe, pure and simple. It's best to bury this universe entirely and start fresh.

I'm just glad I got to see Flash at the movies after so long at least once and he displayed a lot of cool powers.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

Screw it, use My Adventures With Superman as the start of the new DCU at least that looks great and you can really set yourself apart from Marvel.

Pixar is dropping the animation ball and Across the Spiderverse proves people will turn up if you give them a reason.

Have that cinematic universe and The Batman and call it a day.

 

[JannTosh]

I just got back, and I really, really enjoyed this. I'm baffled that it's flopping this hard but also, it's nostalgia for Snyder's movies. General Zod in this basically is the poster for "Thanks, but no thanks, DC." We can see now exactly how #RestoreTheSnyderVerse would have performed theatrically. The Flash's performance is a rejection of Snyder's universe, pure and simple. It's best to bury this universe entirely and start fresh.

I'm just glad I got to see Flash at the movies after so long at least once and he displayed a lot of cool powers.

Snyder has nothing to do with this movie. He has not had a theatrical DC movie released since 2016. Most of the recent DC movies have been trying to go away from the Snyder style yet still were disliked and bombed. Think WW1984, Birds of Prey, Shazam 2 and now The Flash



if they really wanted people who liked Man of Steel to come out and see this they should have had Cavill's Superman be in it

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

I've seen a few people online say that this movie directly references Justice League. Not after spoilers, but does it? I thought it had been said here that the only previous DCEU entry directly referenced was MOS.

 

[kguillou]

It does a couple of times, it directly implies Zack Snyder's Justice League is canon a few times.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

It does a couple of times, it directly implies Zack Snyder's Justice League is canon a few times.

Okay. I've pretty much finally managed to expunge the JL TC from my memory and I've never seen Snyder's cut. Is that going to be a problem?

 

[Nemeres]

Enjoyed it a lot. My crowd did too and laughed hard at the bits. I was impressed with how the movie keeps a good momentum despite the time-travel knots. The ending was the usual CGI whirlwind of color/light that loses me a little, a problem these movies keep having... but good story effort overall. Studio drama aside, I had fun.

 

[Web-Head]

Okay. I've pretty much finally managed to expunge the JL TC from my memory and I've never seen Snyder's cut. Is that going to be a problem?

Nope

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Nope

Great

 

[Comicbookguy339]

I've seen a few people online say that this movie directly references Justice League. Not after spoilers, but does it? I thought it had been said here that the only previous DCEU entry directly referenced was MOS.

Actually references ZSJL.

 

[Herolee10]

Ben and Ezra realizing that they have the ugliest costumes in the history of their respective characters.

 

[kguillou]

Enjoyed it a lot. My crowd did too and laughed hard at the bits. I was impressed with how the movie keeps a good momentum despite the time-travel knots. The ending was the usual CGI whirlwind of color/light that loses me a little, a problem these movies keep having... but good story effort overall. Studio drama aside, I had fun.

Good to see some enjoyed it. This movie has been one of DC’s most wildly divisive films in some time. Having had some days pass and letting it sit in my mind i want to rewatch it with reset expectations and see if i enjoy it more.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I've been thinking about the performance of this movie and the ''haha you all thought Keaton would be a big draw'' brigade online.

---

I think the reality is Keaton is fondly remembered and cherished by a certain generation (30-55 age range), but the under 30's simply don't feel the same way. The Burton movies are smaller, more intimate and very much quaint by today's standards. They can appreciate them, but it's simply not ''their'' Batman. Not enough crazy action sequences, not enough in your face humor, not enough CGI detours, not enough world building.

WB have spent the last 30 years pushing the ''new'' with very little consideration of what came before when it came to Batman. Keaton morphed into Kilmer who morphed very quickly into Clooney, who was then followed by Bale, Affleck and now Pattinson. The franchise has had its ups and down, but the truth is... it's the character that is popular, never truly the actor within the cowl. Sure, the actor can bask in the glory of success, but it's all about a certain vision of the character hitting the zeitgeist at the right time.

Super hero movies are destined to be rebooted, reimagined leaving the older versions without a true sense of relevancy. If you want to show your kids a great STAR WARS movie, you stick on A New Hope and then allow them to discover the rest. Raiders of the Lost Ark isn't going anywhere, neither is Back to the Future. These movies are allowed to breathe and become truly generational allowing, for example, the return of Harrison Ford as Han Solo greater significance amongst a much wider audience.

Michael Keaton and Batman 1989 does not have that luxury.

If kids want to watch a Batman film now, they have ALOT of options to choose from and most likely will gravitate to The Batman and find ''their'' Batman with Robert Pattinson. Until one day, their own kids will blink and wonder ''Pattinson who?''.

It worked with Spider-Man: No Way Home as they played the ''Will they? Won't They?'' angle and the true hook of that movie was... come see the very well liked current version of Spider-Man actually interacting with two other iterations of the character. They brought fans of each version together (and within a much shorter time scale). Ezra/The Flash is certainly no Holland/Spider-Man.

Now... do a Bat-Verse movie featuring Keaton, Bale, Affleck and Pattinson (with a cameo from Clooney) and you have a very different story. Keaton on his own in a movie featuring a character/actor the audiences have not gravitated to is fighting a losing battle.

I guess us older fans simply got caught up in our own hype.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I just got back, and I really, really enjoyed this. I'm baffled that it's flopping this hard but also, it's nostalgia for Snyder's movies. General Zod in this basically is the poster for "Thanks, but no thanks, DC." We can see now exactly how #RestoreTheSnyderVerse would have performed theatrically. The Flash's performance is a rejection of Snyder's universe, pure and simple. It's best to bury this universe entirely and start fresh.

I'm just glad I got to see Flash at the movies after so long at least once and he displayed a lot of cool powers.

Yup. This is a clear sign that a full reboot is needed. You cannot build an entire cinematic universe on divisive groundwork, and no matter how many of Snyders defenders point how "beautiful" man of steel was, it doesn't change the fact that a lot of people though the movie was a grim, dull, loud, and empty experience. Batman vs Superman destroyed any sort of course correction that was possible.

In regards to Keaton, you know, I'd be lying if I said my nostalgia for something like the Raimi Spider-Man films wasn't stronger. Even though Batman is my favorite superhero, and i love the Burton movies, I don't have a ton of nostalgia for them like I do the Raimi films, even though I watched Burtons Batman movies a while before the Nolan ones came out. I'm turning 30 this year, and obviously the Raimi movies had the most impact on my 9 year old brain when it hit theaters in 2002. And then, Nolan, obviously, changed everything and became MY definitive live action Batman. I hold the Nolan trilogy so close to my heart because it gave me everything I didn't even know I wanted out of Batman movies. So I do have a lot of nostalgia for Bale and that world because he was the Batman of my teen/early adult years. Not that i don't have nostalgia for Keaton, but it's nowhere near as strong as say someone who was 17 when Batman 89 came out. I think I have more nostalgia for Batman TAS. Batman Returns is one of the best Batman films to me though, ranked #4 right under TDK trilogy.

So while it was cool seeing him in The Flash, i feel like he wasn't even used properly enough in the plot to make sense to me, and on top of that, the nostalgia factor wasn't that strong. I did smile when I heard the elfman notes though.

 

[Frodo]

I've been thinking about the performance of this movie and the ''haha you all thought Keaton would be a big draw'' brigade online.

---

I think the reality is Keaton is fondly remembered and cherished by a certain generation (30-55 age range), but the under 30's simply don't feel the same way. The Burton movies are smaller, more intimate and very much quaint by today's standards. They can appreciate them, but it's simply not ''their'' Batman. Not enough crazy action sequences, not enough in your face humor, not enough CGI detours, not enough world building.

WB have spent the last 30 years pushing the ''new'' with very little consideration of what came before when it came to Batman. Keaton morphed into Kilmer who morphed very quickly into Clooney, who was then followed by Bale, Affleck and now Pattinson. The franchise has had its ups and down, but the truth is... it's the character that is popular, never truly the actor within the cowl. Sure, the actor can bask in the glory of success, but it's all about a certain vision of the character hitting the zeitgeist at the right time.

Super hero movies are destined to be rebooted, reimagined leaving the older versions without a true sense of relevancy. If you want to show your kids a great STAR WARS movie, you stick on A New Hope and then allow them to discover the rest. Raiders of the Lost Ark isn't going anywhere, neither is Back to the Future. These movies are allowed to breathe and become truly generational allowing, for example, the return of Harrison Ford as Han Solo greater significance amongst a much wider audience.

Michael Keaton and Batman 1989 does not have that luxury.

If kids want to watch a Batman film now, they have ALOT of options to choose from and most likely will gravitate to The Batman and find ''their'' Batman with Robert Pattinson. Until one day, their own kids will blink and wonder ''Pattinson who?''.

It worked with Spider-Man: No Way Home as they played the ''Will they? Won't They?'' angle and the true hook of that movie was... come see the very well liked current version of Spider-Man actually interacting with two other iterations of the character. They brought fans of each version together (and within a much shorter time scale). Ezra/The Flash is certainly no Holland/Spider-Man.

Now... do a Bat-Verse movie featuring Keaton, Bale, Affleck and Pattinson (with a cameo from Clooney) and you have a very different story. Keaton on his own in a movie featuring a character/actor the audiences have not gravitated to is fighting a losing battle.

I guess us older fans simply got caught up in our own hype.

Totally agree.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Oh, I destroyed my video tapes of Batman '89 and Returns in the 90's watching them so many times.

Keaton and Conroy were very much the embodiment of Batman to me growing up (with great affection for the Schumacher films). I don't think they'll ever truly be topped for me in their respective arenas.

''Batman'' will always be the version of the character you meet when you were young and had no need to compare or critique. You just accepted what you were seeing and let it wash over you.

 

[The Batman]

I've been thinking about the performance of this movie and the ''haha you all thought Keaton would be a big draw'' brigade online.

---

I think the reality is Keaton is fondly remembered and cherished by a certain generation (30-55 age range), but the under 30's simply don't feel the same way. The Burton movies are smaller, more intimate and very much quaint by today's standards. They can appreciate them, but it's simply not ''their'' Batman. Not enough crazy action sequences, not enough in your face humor, not enough CGI detours, not enough world building.

WB have spent the last 30 years pushing the ''new'' with very little consideration of what came before when it came to Batman. Keaton morphed into Kilmer who morphed very quickly into Clooney, who was then followed by Bale, Affleck and now Pattinson. The franchise has had its ups and down, but the truth is... it's the character that is popular, never truly the actor within the cowl. Sure, the actor can bask in the glory of success, but it's all about a certain vision of the character hitting the zeitgeist at the right time.

Super hero movies are destined to be rebooted, reimagined leaving the older versions without a true sense of relevancy. If you want to show your kids a great STAR WARS movie, you stick on A New Hope and then allow them to discover the rest. Raiders of the Lost Ark isn't going anywhere, neither is Back to the Future. These movies are allowed to breathe and become truly generational allowing, for example, the return of Harrison Ford as Han Solo greater significance amongst a much wider audience.

Michael Keaton and Batman 1989 does not have that luxury.

If kids want to watch a Batman film now, they have ALOT of options to choose from and most likely will gravitate to The Batman and find ''their'' Batman with Robert Pattinson. Until one day, their own kids will blink and wonder ''Pattinson who?''.

It worked with Spider-Man: No Way Home as they played the ''Will they? Won't They?'' angle and the true hook of that movie was... come see the very well liked current version of Spider-Man actually interacting with two other iterations of the character. They brought fans of each version together (and within a much shorter time scale). Ezra/The Flash is certainly no Holland/Spider-Man.

Now... do a Bat-Verse movie featuring Keaton, Bale, Affleck and Pattinson (with a cameo from Clooney) and you have a very different story. Keaton on his own in a movie featuring a character/actor the audiences have not gravitated to is fighting a losing battle.

I guess us older fans simply got caught up in our own hype.

I don't know. James Bond has been reimagined and rebooted as well, and yet Connery is still often considered the best Bond, even by people who definitely weren't around during his tenure.

The thing about Batman is that he is constantly overshadowed in his own films. Guys like Burton and post BB Nolan continuously give the best moments or lines to the main villains. In Burton's case, the villains even got the more fleshed out storyarcs.

The result of that is having film Batmen that aren't as loved as Connery's Bond, Reeve's Superman, or Shatner's Kirk.

 

[Frodo]

I don't know. James Bond has been reimagined and rebooted as well, and yet Connery is still often considered the best Bond, even by people who definitely weren't around during his tenure.

The thing about Batman is that he is constantly overshadowed in his own films. Guys like Burton and post BB Nolan continuously give the best moments or lines to the main villains. In Burton's case, the villains even got the more fleshed out storyarcs.

The result of that is having film Batmen that aren't as loved as Connery's Bond, Reeve's Superman, or Shatner's Kirk.

I think that really depends on the age of the person you're asking.

You've had a generation of people who grew up with Craig and consider him the best Bond and not Connery.

I'm a genXer who considers Connery the best ,but I don't think that view is universally held by fans or GA in their 30s and 20s , i.e. the people who basically grew up and had Craig as Bond for close to 20 years.

I'm not sure Chris Reeve's Superman is thought of with the same emotional attachment among Millennials and Zoomers the way it's thought among GenXers.

Alot of Baby Boomers still think of George Reeves as Superman.

So the age you receive these characters, and which version of the character ,does make a difference.

At this point , for alot of zoomers , Keaton is their parent's Batman , and for them, The " older Batman " who would resonate the most ,would probably be Christian Bale.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

I think the reality is Keaton is fondly remembered and cherished by a certain generation (30-55 age range), but the under 30's simply don't feel the same way.

I agree about the under 30s, but there are plenty of us over 55 who cherish Keaton's Batman!

Batman Returns is one of the best Batman films to me though, ranked #4 right under TDK trilogy.

Nice to see such love for Returns For me it shares the #1 spot with The Dark Knight and The Batman.

 

[Steyin]

I won't be seeing this until it "streams" as I'm not supporting the film financially due to Ezra's activities. That aside, I read the overall plot/film summary from the leak early last year, and that solidified this was a stinker for me. The trailers made it look nice sure, but I'm not surprised at the reactions/results.

 

[Frodo]

I won't be seeing this until it "streams" as I'm not supporting the film financially due to Ezra's activities. That aside, I read the overall plot/film summary from the leak early last year, and that solidified this was a stinker for me. The trailers made it look nice sure, but I'm not surprised at the reactions/results.

I skipped it as well.
I almost gave in and saw it ,despite my feelings about the lead.

But at the end of the day , I can't stomach the lead, regardless of the art vs artist discussion in fandom sounding this thing.

So I decided to skip it ,and ultimately, from what I've heard, it doesn't sound like something I need to rush to see in theaters.

The only parts that really interested me were The Keaton and Calle parts, in addition to the easter egg cameos, which I knew about well ahead of the films release do to leaks.

And I can wait to watch those scenes.

I'm not surprised that GA aren't as high on the film as fans are, since, fans have been much more hyped and invested in this film than average filmgoers have been.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

I dunno. Depending on how big a fan of Keaton you are, it's worth it seeing his material on the big screen. He's worth it.

Now, do you want to pay less, use a free ticket or pay for another film and sneak in? Maybe, but I would have been very bummed to have skipped it, personally.

Especially at this point--Miller got paid already. I imagine they're not enough of a name to get a % of the gross, but even if they were, it ain't gonna amount to much. Hell, Keaton is probably the one who's getting a cut, if anything, so the movie's failure might be affecting his overall bottom line.

The movie's failure is written in stone, I would say avoiding it to punish Miller is actually only going to punish yourself... if you're actually invested in anything the film has to offer. If someone wasn't invested in Keats, I honestly don't think I'd recommend the movie outside of a streaming watch, though. That's for sure. Supergirl honestly isn't in it enough to recommend on that basis.

 

[Frodo]

I dunno. Depending on how big a fan of Keaton you are, it's worth it seeing his material on the big screen. He's worth it.

Now, do you want to pay less, use a free ticket or pay for another film and sneak in? Maybe, but I would have been very bummed to have skipped it, personally.

Especially at this point--Miller got paid already. I imagine they're not enough of a name to get a % of the gross, but even if they were, it ain't gonna amount to much. Hell, Keaton is probably the one who's getting a cut, if anything, so the movie's failure might be affecting his overall bottom line.

The movie's failure is written in stone, I would say avoiding it to punish Miller is actually only going to punish yourself... if you're actually invested in anything the film has to offer. If someone wasn't invested in Keats, I honestly don't think I'd recommend the movie outside of a streaming watch, though. That's for sure. Supergirl honestly isn't in it enough to recommend on that basis.

At the end of the day it depends on the viewer , and ultimately , I decided to skip it even with Keaton in it.

And I gotta say, I don't regret skipping it.

Someone else may have been bummed skipping it , but that's some else's feeling, not mine.

I can only speak for myself as a viewer.

I avoided it because I couldn't stomach the actor .
It's not about punishment for my point of view.

I do concede there are potential fans who want to punish Ezra, but if I find it hard to separate the art from the artist, would it be better I go into see the film anyway and have that paint my view of the film overall?

I'd rather skip it, and let people watch the film unbiased , than me go into it with a biased view , which would probably make me come down on the film , when it actually may be pretty good.

Ultimately If my skipping the film bothers someone else that much ,that's really more about them than it is about me.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Ultimately If my skipping the film bothers someone that much ,that's really more about them than it is about me.

Do as you wish, I'm not bothered

 

[Frodo]

Do as you wish, I'm not bothered

I wasn't talking about you.

I was just saying that ultimately my skipping the film really shouldn't amount to a hill of beans to anyone in terms of their feelings about whether I should, or shouldn't see the film.