The Brave and the Bold News and Discussion Thread

[BatLobster]

I mean the thing is that the source material is dark, but it's dark in extraordinarily different ways from Reeves take to the extent that I don't think there's any issue here, you just have to extract the same tone from the Morrison run and by default you'll have a take that feels distinct from Reeves but still dark and what you'd expect from a modern Batman movie.

Sure, but distinct enough to be another mega-successful flagship franchise? I mean, Batman Returns and The Dark Knight are both dark in very different ways. It doesn't mean I think it would've been a good idea to release both of them close together. That's kind of the issue here, we're talking from the viewpoint of fans who understand a lot more nuances of the character and different incarnations in the source material, but I'm trying to look at this strictly in business terms and what is best for the overall Batman "brand" right now. And ultimately I think oversaturation is a problem and something to be avoided if possible. Seeing Batman on the big screen should feel special. That is my primary concern here. If The Brave and the Bold had come out a couple of years ago and been a strong success and Matt Reeves was now attempting to get a noir/detective take on Batman off the ground, I'd be arguing the same thing. It's just the way the timing of all this worked out. But timing is very important for these kinds of things.


I tend to agree. Reeves has no good reason to chain himself to an unproven DCU at this point. But if they just show some patience, who's to say he wouldn't be open to letting Pattinson's Batman off the leash when he's done with the character, assuming the DCU launches successfully? I think it's just smarter for everyone to wait and see how things play out.

 

[Eddie Dean]

Nooo not John Logan how will we survive ohh Noo

 

[flickchick85]

I’m honestly thinking they announced this project as early as they did just to make it clear that there would be a Batman in the DCU, and that they weren’t forcing Reeves to be a part of it. I don’t think it was ever anywhere on the immediate horizon.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

lol.
I guess DCUleaks took their first L with this one.
Also @FilmNerdJamie if you know something just say it, if not it's just speculation and it's kinda wild to be coy with that as if it's any real info.

But that would go against his entire shtick so I wouldn't take it seriously. It is absolutely just speculation.

Logan would've been a perfectly fine, solid pick for this. I like him more than a lot of the DCU stable of writers they have anyway, very few are writers I think particularly highly of apart from Tom King.

 

[Invader Joker]

Sure, but distinct enough to be another mega-successful flagship franchise? I mean, Batman Returns and The Dark Knight are both dark in very different ways. It doesn't mean I think it would've been a good idea to release both of them close together. That's kind of the issue here, we're talking from the viewpoint of fans who understand a lot more nuances of the character and different incarnations in the source material, but I'm trying to look at this strictly in business terms and what is best for the overall Batman "brand" right now. And ultimately I think oversaturation is a problem and something to be avoided if possible. Seeing Batman on the big screen should feel special. That is my primary concern here. If The Brave and the Bold had come out a couple of years ago and been a strong success and Matt Reeves was now attempting to get a noir/detective take on Batman off the ground, I'd be arguing the same thing. It's just the way the timing of all this worked out. But timing is very important for these kinds of things.

I mean I think the answer to that is a resounding yes. What an adaptation of Grant Morrison's Batman run with Damian Wayne and the Bat-Family asks for on a fundamental level, on a structural level, in regards to tone is so, so different from anything the Reevesverse is ever gonna tackle to the extent that I genuinely do not think it's an issue in any single way. The mere fact that this film would have League of Assasins, lazarus pits, probably Batman in a more globe throtting setting, etc is enough of a distinction. You'd literally have to go out of your way to try to make it similar to Pattinson's to make it a problem. Even the sort of actor that this movie would ask for a Batman performer is entirely different from what Pattinson is doing.

And the thing is that if you look at things from a business perspective DC has no good options right now. They can't rely on Supergirl, The Authority and Swamp Thing as the foundation for a new DCU. They need a Batman for people to take this seriously, and the best way to establish that Batman is a solo movie.

Is it a risk? Yes, but if they make a great movie it'll more than likely pay off. They just have to, you know, make a great movie.

I’m honestly thinking they announced this project as early as they did just to make it clear that there would be a Batman in the DCU, and that they weren’t forcing Reeves to be a part of it. I don’t think it was ever anywhere on the immediate horizon.

They actually did imply it was in the immediate horizon. The presentation they did said that those 10 projects they announced where for the "next 4 years" from 2023 onwards and said it'd cover 2025-2027 ("Entitled Chapter One, “Gods and Monsters”, a portion of what will unfold between 2025-2027") and my guess is that it still is in their plans for it to be so, not to mention Gunn's comment about how they'd have to "balance out Brave and the Bold with The Batman" and that The Batman Part ll would simply not release in the same 6 month period as Brave and the Bold.
It's just that with the writer's strike obviously development on it got paused for 5 months, but right now there's no real rason to think it's getting pushed back or something, even if it doesn't have a screenwriter yet that's not weird since the project has only exited for 6 workable months and they've probably been going over different possibilities (And we don't even know if they don't have a screenwriter yet, just because this John Logan thing was false doesn't mean they don't have someone else)

James Gunn and Peter Safran on Building a New DC Universe | DC

The recently hired Co-Chairmen and CEOs of the new DC Studios have the weight of the universe on their shoulders—the DC Universe, that is.

www.dc.com

James Gunn & Peter Safran Unveil Big DC Plan With New Movies For Batman & Robin, ‘Swamp Thing’, ‘The Authority’; ‘Lanterns’ TV Series & More

DC Film, TV Plan Unveiled: Batman Movie 'Brave and the Bold', Swamp Thing by James Gunn and Peter Safran

deadline.com

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Fundamentally they just should not be trying to launch a shared universe again. It is some absolute definition of insanity ****. I understand why, they probably need to so they can tell shareholders they are maximizing the DC brand to its full potential but we all know the chances of it working are slim. The "Good option" is to just make better movies with these characters, be satisfied with already having a functional successful and established Batman franchise and put the idea they're gonna be Marvel out of their heads.

I don't even dislike shared universes inherently, I'm one of the few people who thinks all the JSA or whatever characters in Legacy are super exciting, I just have zero faith it'll work and won't be a cluster****.

 

[Invader Joker]

Fundamentally they just should not be trying to launch a shared universe again. It is some absolute definition of insanity ****. I understand why, they probably need to so they can tell shareholders they are maximizing the DC brand to its full potential but we all know the chances of it working are slim. The "Good option" is to just make better movies with these characters, be satisfied with already having a functional successful and established Batman franchise and put the idea they're gonna be Marvel out of their heads.

That ship sailed a year ago. All we can do now is hope for good creatives to work on these projects. And I mean, if they're gonna create a new DCU there is probably no better time to do it than now that Marvel is floundering because they can grab the market space they lost, so they gotta strike when the iron's hot and if they fail, well, whatever. Again, it's not like The Batman is actually gonna be affected by any of this provided it keeps making money.

 

[solidsnake86]

I think part of the issue with batman is that this would be, what, the eighth live action iteration if you count the tv series. I don't care how different they make the brave and the bold, we will have seen it before. When I watched the flash, honestly, I thought I was watching batman and robin again with Ben Afflecks parts. If that's the batman they are giving us, just look at the flash's box office and you have your answer.

I thought the batman was great, but as a general audience member, you could see it as an extension of the Nolan series, just a little bit darker. It's easy as fans to think this stuff is different but it's really not. I tend to enjoy comic book movies in general, but even I haven't watched a lot of the recent stuff from marvel or DC. That's saying a lot when I can't even bring myself to watch it. The more batman there is, the less unique it becomes.

 

[Invader Joker]

I think part of the issue with batman is that this would be, what, the eighth live action iteration if you count the tv series. I don't care how different they make the brave and the bold, we will have seen it before. When I watched the flash, honestly, I thought I was watching batman and robin again with Ben Afflecks parts. If that's the batman they are giving us, just look at the flash's box office and you have your answer.

I don't think we've ever seen anything like the Grant Morrison or the Bat-Family Batman on the big screen before.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Yeah, I'm not interested in this movie and have zero faith it'll actually remotely capture what is special about Morrison's Batman - all that stuff is just too weird and esoteric and metafictional for a mainstream superhero movie - but focusing on the Bat Family is clearly the correct direction for whatever the next on screen iteration of Batman is. Personally, I'd prefer to just explore Dick becoming Batman or do Batman Beyond but that's never going to happen.

I feel like almost inevitably this will have a lot of imagery and characters from the Morrison era but none of the actual meaning or weight behind it.

 

[LordShadow]

I think if they try to make Reeves' Batman or any of his stuff part of a shared DC Universe, Reeves is going to walk.

 

[LordShadow]

I mean I think the answer to that is a resounding yes. What an adaptation of Grant Morrison's Batman run with Damian Wayne and the Bat-Family asks for on a fundamental level, on a structural level, in regards to tone is so, so different from anything the Reevesverse is ever gonna tackle to the extent that I genuinely do not think it's an issue in any single way. The mere fact that this film would have League of Assasins, lazarus pits, probably Batman in a more globe throtting setting, etc is enough of a distinction. You'd literally have to go out of your way to try to make it similar to Pattinson's to make it a problem. Even the sort of actor that this movie would ask for a Batman performer is entirely different from what Pattinson is doing.

And the thing is that if you look at things from a business perspective DC has no good options right now. They can't rely on Supergirl, The Authority and Swamp Thing as the foundation for a new DCU. They need a Batman for people to take this seriously, and the best way to establish that Batman is a solo movie.

Is it a risk? Yes, but if they make a great movie it'll more than likely pay off. They just have to, you know, make a great movie.

They actually did imply it was in the immediate horizon. The presentation they did said that those 10 projects they announced where for the "next 4 years" from 2023 onwards and said it'd cover 2025-2027 ("Entitled Chapter One, “Gods and Monsters”, a portion of what will unfold between 2025-2027") and my guess is that it still is in their plans for it to be so, not to mention Gunn's comment about how they'd have to "balance out Brave and the Bold with The Batman" and that The Batman Part ll would simply not release in the same 6 month period as Brave and the Bold.
It's just that with the writer's strike obviously development on it got paused for 5 months, but right now there's no real rason to think it's getting pushed back or something, even if it doesn't have a screenwriter yet that's not weird since the project has only exited for 6 workable months and they've probably been going over different possibilities (And we don't even know if they don't have a screenwriter yet, just because this John Logan thing was false doesn't mean they don't have someone else)
View attachment 76978

James Gunn and Peter Safran on Building a New DC Universe | DC

The recently hired Co-Chairmen and CEOs of the new DC Studios have the weight of the universe on their shoulders—the DC Universe, that is.

www.dc.com

View attachment 76979

James Gunn & Peter Safran Unveil Big DC Plan With New Movies For Batman & Robin, ‘Swamp Thing’, ‘The Authority’; ‘Lanterns’ TV Series & More

DC Film, TV Plan Unveiled: Batman Movie 'Brave and the Bold', Swamp Thing by James Gunn and Peter Safran

deadline.com

Just like they were fully invested in the success of The Flash, Shazam II, Blue Beetle, and Aquaman 2?

 

[Invader Joker]

Just like they were fully invested in the success of The Flash, Shazam II, Blue Beetle, and Aquaman 2?

Those weren't projects of their slate, those were deadweights from the previous administration lol. So much ****ing paranoia, conspiracy theories and dramas over one false/outdated report. Extraordinarily ridiculous.

I think if they try to make Reeves' Batman or any of his stuff part of a shared DC Universe, Reeves is going to walk.

That topic is at least one year old. They aren't forcing ****, they aren't trying to do that, they aren't going to do that, so why the hell bring it up?

 

[LordShadow]

Those weren't projects of their slate, those were deadweights from the previous administration lol. So much ****ing paranoia, conspiracy theories and dramas over one false/outdated report. Extraordinarily ridiculous.


That topic is at least one year old. They aren't forcing ****, they aren't trying to do that, they aren't going to do that, so why the hell bring it up?

I wasn't the one who brought it up. It was posted here yesterday.

 

[emielaen]

This is all the convo is gonna be until more info on Penguin and Part II start to come out huh

 

[BatLobster]

And the thing is that if you look at things from a business perspective DC has no good options right now. They can't rely on Supergirl, The Authority and Swamp Thing as the foundation for a new DCU. They need a Batman for people to take this seriously, and the best way to establish that Batman is a solo movie.

I think the good option here is to get people invested in a new Superman series and let that be the core foundation for now. DC has never had individually successful individual Batman and Superman series running simultaneously before. If Gunn's movie works, they can change that.

I really think there's a world where, if they are just patient enough, The Batman world could somehow be brought into the DCU once Reeves has finished telling the story he wants to tell with the creative freedom he wants. Obviously that's speculation, but regardless I think they could just wait and see for now. Again, the whole concept of a new DCU goes out the window without a successful Superman reboot. If you get that right, then it's a potential game-changer for the landscape of DC. The last time they were attempting to start a universe, WB got cold feet about continuing a solo Superman franchise and...well.

I think part of the issue with batman is that this would be, what, the eighth live action iteration if you count the tv series. I don't care how different they make the brave and the bold, we will have seen it before. When I watched the flash, honestly, I thought I was watching batman and robin again with Ben Afflecks parts. If that's the batman they are giving us, just look at the flash's box office and you have your answer.

I thought the batman was great, but as a general audience member, you could see it as an extension of the Nolan series, just a little bit darker. It's easy as fans to think this stuff is different but it's really not. I tend to enjoy comic book movies in general, but even I haven't watched a lot of the recent stuff from marvel or DC. That's saying a lot when I can't even bring myself to watch it. The more batman there is, the less unique it becomes.

I feel this. Nothing used to get me more excited movie-wise than a prospect of a new Batman movie. I haven't felt that way in a long time because of the way they have oversaturated it and watered it down. Both the genre as a whole and the Batman world in DC. That's at the root of this conversation to me.

 

[solidsnake86]

I wasn't even excited for the Batman at first because like I said, originally it just seemed like Nolan's series. That said, after watching it, I think it may be my favourite batman film because of the world it built. It seemed like Gotham was actually alive and they didn't shy away from including villains in a way that made sense.

Truthfully, I'm not even a fan of Morrisons batman so that doesn't move the needle for me at all and I couldn't care less about Damian Wayne.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Morrison's Batman isn't likely to be Gunn's only inspiration for this film.

 

[Blade Hoarder]

I wasn't even excited for the Batman at first because like I said, originally it just seemed like Nolan's series. That said, after watching it, I think it may be my favourite batman film because of the world it built. It seemed like Gotham was actually alive and they didn't shy away from including villains in a way that made sense.

Truthfully, I'm not even a fan of Morrisons batman so that doesn't move the needle for me at all and I couldn't care less about Damian Wayne.

Does the flash movie have the worst Gotham? I was thinking all through the chase scene why there are American school busses on Paris. It was so odd. Then it dawned on me that they’re making it Gotham.

 

[solidsnake86]

Just as a side note, that Tom Cruise news is a pretty big deal and lends some more credence to a deal between WBD and Paramount. That would be a good thing for DC films as it's better than getting bought out by another studio. If zaslav pulls it off, WBD and paramount would be a huge studio to rival Disney and universal. I would also be curious to see if they get more into the amusement park game through licensing or long term actually buying some parks. Recently six flags and cedar point announced their own merger. Down the road would zaslav consider buying it? As much as people hate on the guy he is actually a very intelligent business person.

 

[Boom]

Save him from Sony.

 

[Sawyer]

Just as a side note, that Tom Cruise news is a pretty big deal and lends some more credence to a deal between WBD and Paramount. That would be a good thing for DC films as it's better than getting bought out by another studio. If zaslav pulls it off, WBD and paramount would be a huge studio to rival Disney and universal. I would also be curious to see if they get more into the amusement park game through licensing or long term actually buying some parks. Recently six flags and cedar point announced their own merger. Down the road would zaslav consider buying it? As much as people hate on the guy he is actually a very intelligent business person.

I… really don’t think so. It just doesn’t make sense for a company in the kinds of financial straits that WBD is to take on even more by buying out Paramount. Cruise jumping ship is probably more due to the issues that have sprung up with Paramount’s new leadership over the past few years and the fact that the writing is already on the wall.

For Zaslav’s (many) faults, he did appoint some reasonably respectable execs to run Warner Bros Pictures and that probably attracted Cruise more than anything.

 

[Invader Joker]

Save him from Sony.

He's actually not that unlikely. Him having screen-tested for Reed Richards shows he'd be interested in long term franchise leading man work, getting The Wolfman is kind of a big deal, and he's in a somewhat favorable spot as a rising star.

I do have to question his chances tho because if he somehow screwed up the Reed Richards MCU screentest then how likely is it he'll somehow nail the Batman one?

Then again maybe that was just a bad fit, who knows.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

He's actually not that unlikely. Him having screen-tested for Reed Richards shows he'd be interested in long term franchise leading man work, getting The Wolfman is kind of a big deal, and he's in a somewhat favorable spot as a rising star.

I do have to question his chances tho because if he somehow screwed up the Reed Richards MCU screentest then how likely is it he'll somehow nail the Batman one?

Then again maybe that was just a bad fit, who knows.

Why do you assume that not getting a role meant you "screwed up" an audition test?

 

[Invader Joker]

Why do you assume that not getting a role meant you "screwed up" an audition test?

The report said that his and Jamie Dornan's screentests went badly.