The All Things Flash Thread. - Part 2

[DocLathropBrown]

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.

Well, sure. Nobody should be letting themselves git in a tizzy about anyone else on the internet, especially not for things that don't matter like a movie.

 

[The Batman]

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.

What you're saying is likely true on an individual basis, but I think that when it comes to certain characters and their various incarnations, there tends to be favorites by consensus, and their popularity crosses generational lines. Especially since younger generations can watch their version on free TV.

 

[Frodo]

Well, sure. Nobody should be letting themselves git in a dizzy about anyone else on the internet, especially not for things that don't matter like a movie.

They really shouldn't , but it happens anyway unfortunately.

 

[Professor S]

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.

Connery had five (or six depending on how you count) films. Keaton had two. His was the first Batman I saw on the big screen, but I wouldn’t say he is “my Batman,” and that’s probably true for a large portion of the general audience as well. Plus, for me personally, I really have no desire to see a geriatric Batman become the mainline version. As someone alluded to earlier, it’s a bit different than seeing three spider men versions interacting with each other.

 

[Frodo]

What you're saying is likely true on an individual basis, but I think that when it comes to certain characters and their various incarnations, there are clear favorites, and they tend to cross generational lines.

I'm skeptical of that of that .

That may apply to people who are diehard fans of a property , but I wouldn't say that true across different generations of average filmgoers , but we may just have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[kguillou]

I think ultimately this thing flopping is not one single thing but a cacophony of factors all coming together:

1) First and foremost: Ezra Miller. And no, i'm not talking about their controversies. The general public arent aware of that stuff...they arent aware of Ezra Miller in general and thats problem #1. Ezra is not a draw as a leading actor. He's no Tom Holland. He played a supporting role in a maligned movie (Justice League 2017) and a supporting role in another lukewarm series (Fantastic Beasts). Ezra is not a household name so your average joe has no vested in interest in seeing this person play The Flash.

2) The CGI. We're all mostly in agreement that this movie's CGI is inexcusable. I think the people of the GA who DID see this movie were turned off by it and are telling their friends and family (this movie looks like s*** dont go see it). Thus killing wom.

3) Crowded summer: May and June were CROWDED. And Thus this movie is not the only one thats doing badly. Elemental bombed hard as well and other movies are struggling. The Little Mermaid, a movie that by all accounts should have broken the box office wide open is also flopping. There's too many big releases in a short time span and audiences are getting burnt out on these things already.

4) The Flash just doesnt have enough cache (yet) with general audiences. This is the toughest truth to face but i think a relevant one. The Flash is not Batman, or Superman or Wonder Woman or Spider-Man. Yes, there was a fairly "popular" CW series that ran for 10 years but one that averaged, what a couple million viewers at its peak? The Flash to mass audiences is still an untested character and thus really had no reason to care about this big multiverse event movie starring this character. The character probably needed to be meticulously built up so people cared about him.

Now, some of you are saying "Kguillou, the movie is just bad and thus its performing bad plain and simple" but we've seen so many "bad" movies or movies that got dunked on by critics (Super Mario) do gang busters at the box office regardless or at least have a huge frontloaded opening weekend. My analysis above is about why WB couldnt even get people in the door to give the movie a chance because thats exactly what this low box office indicates. People just didnt go see it to decide for themselves if it was bad or not.

 

[The Batman]

I'm skeptical of that of that .

That may apply to people who are diehard fans of a property , but I wouldn't say that true across different generations of average filmgoers , but we may just have to agree to disagree on that.

I don't think that just applies to diehard fans, but yes, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[The Guard]

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.

WB wasn't banking on the under 30 crowd to support this film because of Keaton. But they probably expected the under 30 crowd to see Keaton and then go "I should probably watch those other two Batman movies now" He was very well received. I won't be surprised when the Keaton Kriterion collection comes out.

 

[moviefreak]

I had some time to spare, so went to see it just for my curiosity...It was entertaining in worst way. The story was all over the place, and most glaringly to me unoriginal.

I keep wondering if the lines & scenes with Ezra Miller were made before, during or after his troubles with law & mental health. They could have eschewed the comedy route with the double Barry. I like comedy but most of then tend to be crude & juvenile (sorry to be an old fart).

I like MOS, BvS & Snyder's JL but couldn't they have went into a different direction without the cast of Affleck, Iron, Gadot, Shannon and Traue? Anyway, the less I said the better. lol

 

[DCnightwing23]

This a friendly reminder that you don't need to make excuses when a bad movie you like bombs critically and financially. It's okay to admit you enjoyed a bad movie that others despised. Heck, I still enjoy Batman Forever and Batman & Robin and I'm well aware of those movies shortcomings.

This movie will fail and it's not going to be because of:

Superhero fatigue
Ezra Miller
Ties to Snyder
DC failures
Bad summer release date

It's going to fail because it's a bad movie. Doesn't mean it won't have its fans, you're absolutely allowed to enjoy this movie once you watch it. But making excuses when it inevitably fails to break even at the BO doesn't help anyone here.

Also, told you so.

 

[Karelia]

Yeah yeah yeah go ahead and gloat Mr. Nightwing.

My brother went to see it with the family today. He texted "this theater is dead." Oof.

 

[kguillou]

This a friendly reminder that you don't need to make excuses when a bad movie you like bombs critically and financially. It's okay to admit you enjoyed a bad movie that others despised. Heck, I still enjoy Batman Forever and Batman & Robin and I'm well aware of those movies shortcomings.

Also, told you so.

Sure but i think its an interesting conversation to see why this movie couldnt even get people into the door so they could decide themselves if it was bad. Plenty of bad movies do great at the box office or have huge opening weekends.

 

[DCnightwing23]

Yeah yeah yeah go ahead and gloat Mr. Nightwing.

My brother went to see it with the family today. He texted "this theater is dead." Oof.

Honestly, an almost (if not entirely) empty IMAX showing with a luxury seat and the right theater eats is one heck of a good time even if the movie is kind of no good.

 

[Karelia]

Honestly, an almost (if not entirely) empty IMAX showing with a luxury seat and the right theater eats is one heck of a good time even if the movie is kind of no good.

True, but it's just sad, really. I didn't hate the movie, but I'm really just kinda "meh" on it. Completely get why people will love it or Completely hate it. I'll rewatch when it hits steaming, but it just feels like quite a bummer being The Flash's first solo movie.

 

[king666]

This a friendly reminder that you don't need to make excuses when a bad movie you like bombs critically and financially. It's okay to admit you enjoyed a bad movie that others despised. Heck, I still enjoy Batman Forever and Batman & Robin and I'm well aware of those movies shortcomings.

Also, told you so.

This is a very simplistic way of interpreting the situation imo.

For real I think your hot take is 100% wrong and I think your list is spot on.

 

[kguillou]

I wonder what alot of the critics who saw it at Cinemacon and raved about it are saying now and if they stand by their reactions/reviews of the film.

 

[Karelia]

I wonder what alot of the critics who saw it at Cinemacon and raved about it are saying now and if they stand by their reactions/reviews of the film.

I've seen some seem genuinely surprised. Kristian Harloff/Sean Chandler being two from the youtube space.

 

[Frodo]

I've seen some seem genuinely surprised. Kristian Harloff/Sean Chandler being two from the youtube space.

Kristian looked shocked to me at least .

I think alot of those in the youtube space who praised it probably are shocked at the film's reception.

 

[DCnightwing23]

This is a very simplistic way of interpreting the situation imo.

That's fair, but you can also say overanalyzing why a movie bombs when it's fairly clear it's a bad movie does nothing for the studio when it comes to learning from a bad movie's shortcomings. That's partially why I believe WB/DC is as divided as it is. If you polled general audiences that watched The Flash, would they even be aware of the Ezra drama? Would they even be aware of the happenings at DC behind the scenes? I think we, as internet comic-book fans, assume general audiences know just as much about all of the above as we do and I don't really believe that's the case. Weak script, very weak visuals (used in promo material to win GA mind you), and absolutely no word of mouth here were its downfall. I believe flickchick might've pointed out the demographic numbers earlier this week and that's a huge factor here in terms of mass appeal. It's a bad movie that didn't have a saving grace to it for most people. It's okay if it has its fans, it's a freakin Flash movie! The first one ever. I don't think anyone would disagree here that Flash deserved better though. He's got an amazing rouges gallery, his power set can be visually incredible if done right, and his supporting characters around him balance him nicely, he's a great character. We'll see this character again on the big screen in the future and hopefully the studio does the character justice that go around.

 

[squeekness]

Watching Zach Snyder's JLA right now. I know I'm in an extreme minority, but I really do like Ezra's Flash. This Flash was the only character I even like in this film. Now I've read no Flash comics really, watched no Flash shows so maybe I'm the target audience-- someone who knows zip about Barry Allen. Now, I can't be the only one in that position because most of the GA doesn't read comics so maybe that's why there is some reluctance on the part of DC to recast and lose some continuity. It does sound like some of you are saying the whole DCU is being recast so bouncing Ezra will matter less. I just hope whoever replaces Ezra does as good a job is all. They brought a much needed levity into a group of too serious heroes.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

This is where we'd say ''Heads will roll for this'', but I don't think there's actually anyone left at WB to punish.

 

[king666]

That's fair, but you can also say overanalyzing why a movie bombs when it's fairly clear it's a bad movie does nothing for the studio when it comes to learning from a bad movie's shortcomings. That's partially why I believe WB/DC is as divided as it is. If you polled general audiences that watched The Flash, would they even be aware of the Ezra drama? Would they even be aware of the happenings at DC behind the scenes? I think we, as internet comic-book fans, assume general audiences know just as much about all of the above as we do and I don't really believe that's the case. Weak script, very weak visuals (used in promo material to win GA mind you), and absolutely no word of mouth here were its downfall. I believe flickchick might've pointed out the demographic numbers earlier this week and that's a huge factor here in terms of mass appeal. It's a bad movie that didn't have a saving grace to it for most people. It's okay if it has its fans, it's a freakin Flash movie! The first one ever. I don't think anyone would disagree here that Flash deserved better though. He's got an amazing rouges gallery, his power set can be visually incredible if done right, and his supporting characters around him balance him nicely, he's a great character. We'll see this character again on the big screen in the future and hopefully the studio does the character justice that go around.

That sounds reasonable . Yeah, I guess I just don’t think it’s bad LOL. I’d argue it’s one of the best DCEU movies story-wise, but I do agree with flickchick’s take on the demographics. And the CGI is just atrocious. I think that plays a huge part in the movie’s terrible performance, specially with the younger audiences.

 

[J.Drangal]

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.

I agree with your whole post but just to add something to that quoted part, I'd say that conversely, I believe The Flash also simply promised to be a product too far removed from the sensibilities of Keaton's Batman fans/lovers.
I know it's true for my entourage as no one went to see the film in theaters. And I suspect there are quite a few people in that case out there as well. Not enough to make the movie a hit, sure, but still. Seems like another legitimate factor to failure to me...

I'm 100% sure if Keaton had been back under the cowl in a project that was more artistically in tune with the past, this thing would have been way more profitable.
First, it inherently would have costs less to make than other current superhero blockbusters and second, the project would have been way more unifying for Burton's Batman nostalgics than what has just been done.

Erf.

 

[DyeLorean]

Everything surrounding this movie is fascinating.
I'm very curious about the future of DC and superhero movies in general.

 

[kguillou]

I agree with your whole post but just to add something to that quoted part, I'd say that conversely, I believe The Flash also simply promised to be a product too far removed from the sensibilities of Keaton's Batman fans/lovers.
I know it's true for my entourage as no one went to see the film in theaters. And I suspect there are quite a few people in that case out there as well. Not enough to make the movie a hit, sure, but still. Seems like another legitimate factor to failure to me...

I'm 100% sure if Keaton had been back under the cowl in a project that was more artistically in tune with the past, this thing would have been way more profitable.
First, it inherently would have costs less to make than other current superhero blockbusters and second, the project would have been way more unifying for Burton's Batman nostalgics than what has just been done.

Erf.

I'll do you one further, I think the 30-55 crowd is probably the only crowd who went to see this. This thing did not appeal to younger millennials--which is the crowd big expensive blockbusters need to target hard. NWH had that advantage as Tobey and Andrew were immediate draws to the millennial crowd...even ANDREW'S Spider-man who was largely divisive, people were interested in seeing him return.