The Brave and the Bold News and Discussion Thread

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Spoiler

Despite how goofy and bright the Flash was, it also had a twisted/nasty undercurrent (electrocution body horror, teeth falling out, babies in microwaves, the nudity, and unintentionally, Ezra Miller's real life persona) that didn't really match Flash in my opinion, but kinda sounds like a decent fit for adapting Morisson's run.

Also, the completely outlandish and comicbooky action/visuals, that really goes for it in a way that a lot of superhero movies don't, balanced with a convincing human story at the core. I could see why he was hired.

Though I still think there's plenty of questionable directional decisions that doesn't inspire confidence overall.

Edited by squeekness for Flash spoilers

 

[Invader Joker]

Spoiler

Despite how goofy and bright the Flash was, it also had a twisted/nasty undercurrent (electrocution body horror, teeth falling out, babies in microwaves, the nudity, and unintentionally, Ezra Miller's real life persona) that didn't really match Flash in my opinion, but kinda sounds like a decent fit for adapting Morisson's run.

Also, the completely outlandish and comicbooky action/visuals, that really goes for it in a way that a lot of superhero movies don't, balanced with a convincing human story at the core. I could see why he was hired.

The big problem with him is that most of those visuals look like **** and it's obvious he's clueless as to how to actually execute them. And I question how much credit he can get with "balancing a convincing human story" when most of that probably comes from Hodson's script, coupled with just the source material (And even then... it's not like there aren't a dozen other directors that couldn't do that as well)

 

[squeekness]

PLEASE DONT POST FLASH SPOILERS HERE NO MATTER HOW MILD!

Thanks!

 

[GreenKToo]

They best rethink Muschietti asap.
Nothing good will come from him directing the B&B.
This isn't 15/20 years ago where any batfilm was guaranteed instant success.

 

[Lily Adler]

Nerds won't let him go. What's next Jared Padalecki wants to play Hal Jordan.

 

[Andrew92]

They're making me hate this guy, they can't accept that he's a c lister at best.

 

[squeekness]

They're making me hate this guy, they can't accept that he's a c lister at best.

He might have been good 20 years ago......

 

[Boom]

Ackles can have it if literally everybody else says no.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Jensen always had something special about him that makes him stand apart from your standard CW leading man even if he isn’t the worlds greatest actor. Don’t think he’d be suited for Batman but I’d be super happy for him to land a major DCU role.

 

[batdude]

I'd like to see Jensen get it, Affleck's not coming back and he would be more fun than Pattinson.

 

[DCDAVE]

Damien Wayne is just too risky of a character for the DCU to introduce so early. I think the general audience would be ok with a Dick Grayson Robin that is 13-16 years of age that will eventually become Nightwing but an assassin child like Damien will have a hard time with the GA.

 

[emielaen]

Solely bc he's a child assassin?

 

[squeekness]

Didn't Kick Ass do well in theaters? I had thought so and it had a child assassin.

 

[J.Drangal]

Now that I think about it, I can already imagine what some people/media here in France could say about a Robin who's a teenager back from the Middle East, where he was trained to fight by a terrorist group and who, sometimes, can cut heads off.
But hey, there are always people waiting to draw a conclusion out of thin air to get the buzz going, so...

For now, given where the IP is and the director attached, I'd say Damian is the least of this film's problems.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

This is my only red flag for the new DCU.

Regardless of the director, having competing, live action, Batman franchises running simultaneously is a bad idea.

I don't blame Gunn. You can't build a new DCU without Batman but you also can't use Pattinson. So you're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I'm a Morrison fanboy and I love Damian, so I'm definitely hyped for this but it's still not wise.

 

[Chris B]

This is my only red flag for the new DCU.

Regardless of the director, having competing, live action, Batman franchises running simultaneously is a bad idea.

I don't blame Gunn. You can't build a new DCU without Batman but you also can't use Pattinson. So you're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I'm a Morrison fanboy and I love Damian, so I'm definitely hyped for this but it's still not wise.

This a hot take but I actually don't think having two concurrent Batman franchises is that big of a deal. Especially since Reeves will already have two Batman films in the can by the time this comes out and I can't see him making more beyond a third one.

That being said though, I think the ideal approach would be to have DCU Batman in a supporting role for the time being and hold off on giving that incarnation a solo film until after Reeves wraps up his trilogy.

 

[OrbOfConfusion]

Didn't Kick Ass do well in theaters? I had thought so and it had a child assassin.

Hit-Girl was definitely a draw for the first Kick-Ass for sure. A pity that the sequel couldn't recapture the magic of what Matthew Vaughn did that, but yes, Kick-Ass, with a mere $30 million budget, did very well.

 

[old city outlaw]

 

[Boom]

Truthfully, I think people are worrying too much.

This isn't going to come out before The Batman II. If The Batman II performs just as well (if not moreso) than the first one, then they're all but certain to greenlight The Batman III. And if you're worried about any negative impact Brave and the Bold may have on The Batman III, it was unlikely Reeves was going to do another one after that anyway.

I just don't see the issue here. If anything, The Batman II will dampen audience response to Brave and the Bold. Not vice versa.

 

[The Batman]

I don't know why they aren't doing an actual Brave and the Bold movie. It's the most obvious and best way to differentiate from Reeves, and you could introduce both a DCU Batman and another DC hero as well.

 

[Boom]

I don't know why they aren't doing an actual Brave and the Bold movie. It's the most obvious and best way to differentiate from Reeves, and you could introduce both a DCU Batman and another DC hero as well.

Or do something smaller and extravagantly weird like The Island of Mister Mayhew.

 

[The Batman]

Or do something smaller and extravagantly weird like The Island of Mister Mayhew.

That story deserves, at the very least, an DTV animated film.

 

[Boom]

I love it. It's so delightfully absurd.

 

[Invader Joker]

I'm kinda continuing the discussion from another thread but you know what, I'll make the argument that I think the Brave and the Bold's success is as important, if not more important, than the success of Superman: Legacy for determining the future of the DCU and Gunn's tenure.

If Gunn's Superman movie underperforms then it's whatever, Superman brand has been struggling for decades, and the DC brand is on the toilet. Superman: Legacy underperforming would not be that much of a shock and it's actually to be expected, and as long as the critical/audience reception is there (which I don't think it'll be that hard to obtain) then there'll be enough goodwill to continue the train moving for Gunn. That's a hit they can take.

If Brave and the Bold underperforms however...

Batman is the most valuable brand that WBD has at the moment. He is their crown jewel. His franchise has been the most consistently succesful in the entire history of DC. For Gunn to make the first Batman movie in about 20 years to underperform would indeed send kind of a very bad message in regards to his plans and the scenario to keep the DCU moving forward like he wants to.
Obviously some sort of hit from The Batman existing is to be expected. It is extremely unlikely to gross as much as The Batman for obvious reasons, but that hit has to be within reason. If Brave and the Bold makes 600 million dollars? Fine.

If it makes less than that, or if it's an outright flop...

That'll be bad news. Very bad news.

Having the direct comparison to The Batman will kinda send the very clear message that the DC brand is better without connected universes. It'll also be really bad for Gunn, as he'd have potentially tainted the most valuable IP that DC has, which would probably piss his bosses (whoever they are at the moment) off.

The sense I get from the discussion surrounding Brave and the Bold is that everyone is treating it like some step-child but them nailing this film will be extremely important to determine the viability of the DCU moving forward. They have to get this film right. And with how The Flash has clearly shown you can't just stick Batman into a movie and expect it to even get a great opening weekend, then quality will be all or nothing for this film. It needs to be great, it can't just be an afterthought.

 

[emielaen]

How fun.