The Brave and the Bold News and Discussion Thread

[Invader Joker]

I don’t think he’s his number one fanboy, that’s hyperbole, but it being a fake announcement that he’s directing Brave and the Bold just feels like wishful thinking. Man who made multiple hits for the studio whose sensibility clearly lines up with Gunn who just made a movie the studio had a huge hard on for featuring Batman gets hired to make Batman movie. It’s not that complicated.

Why? It's not the first time a studio does it. Every studio has had their fair share of directors that they prop up with certain projects that they either never go forward with or were never actually a thing in the first place. You don't even have to look much further than WB and DC, since it's the exact thing they did with Joss Whedon; who later admitted he didn't even have an idea for a Batgirl movie when he got announced. That announcement existed purely for PR reasons, much like how I suspect Muschietti's did. What did Muschietti gain from that? No idea, possibly just some goodwill for WBD, but I'm not even suggesting something that's incredibly out-there or uncommon. It happens pretty often, actually (Momoa's supposed Frosty the Snowman was another example, which later came out to be completely fake and an announcement that existed purely to combat negative PR against Jon Berg)

Also, again: Gunn seems to be incredibly hard on other's people's works, especially as far as blockbusters go. I do not see him looking at The Flash's dog**** CGI and genuinely thinking "woah andy is such a good director I can't wait to work with him" when he himself would know how much Muschietti had to screw up and how absolutely atrocious he'd have to be as a director on the most technical sense for it to come out the way it did. It cannot be overstated how mediocre the quality of the visuals and CGI in The Flash is.It is not something that anyone with the slightest critical eye of this sort of things can mistake as good, it's the equivalent of tasting rotten food. It's just objectively that bad.

Also the Muschiettis themselves never said anything upon that announcement. Barbara Muschietti was posting dozens and dozens of Instagram stories those days and not a single one addressing that announcement and those articles. Gunn, who always delivers news on social media, didn't share the news either. Not on Threads, not on Insta, not on Bluesky, not on Twitter, not on Facebook, which is extreeemely uncharacteristic of him; I mean, this is the man that played a retweet Swamp Thing game with Mangold as soon as that became a thing. Which does further suggest to me this was never something real, and just some PR fodder WBD gave to the trades to try to make The Flash not look as irrelevant as it is by opening weekend. (The timing supports this, as the news came out just when the opening weekend was about to start and numbers were looking dire)

 

[OrbOfConfusion]

The fact the movie was bad and looked bad does. Again: You can blame the opening weekend on Ezra, the DCEU, whatever. But the quality of the movie and the visuals, which Muschietti was directly in charge off (and let's not go over this fairytale that "Oh poor Muschietti he suffered from pressure by higher ups and they meddled with his artistic vision", BS. Muschietti was boasting about how the film was his in the entire press tour. He's given zero indication he was blindsided or done wrong in any way) you can absolutely blame on him and its subsequent effect with the B Cinemascore and the widespread rejection by audiences that lead it to have the absolute worst legs of any DC film in existence.

I'm kinda tired of this trend of constantly defending directors whenever a bad movie turns out bad—sometimes directors just do **** jobs. No one spent more time working on The Flash than Muschietti, and he was still the one that delivered the worst visuals of any blockbuster in the last few years. He was still the one that gave the movie its schizophrenic tone which you can blame on him since it was the same in IT Chapter 2.

You're right. As the director, he should've just said the movie was bad or maybe even pull a Josh Trank and reportedly (as it's only talk) trash the hotel room where he stayed during production. Because studios absolutely pin medals on creatives who lambast the work they put in and don't try to sell their product, if all the overworked VFX artists airing their grievances as of recent is any indication.

What folks are saying is that he's no more solely liable for the film's box office failure than Gunn being the sole reason for The Suicide Squad being a box office failure (again, also due to incompetency and the day and date release from Warners). And of course Muschietti spent more time working on the film than others- he's the director who actually saw it through to completion! If you want to compare his tenure to Rick Famuyiwa or Seth Grahame-Smith, go for it, but that's a pretty easy win for Muschietti as far as who worked on it longer. Who else would've spent longer time on it? Anyone involved from previous regimes besides Ezra was long gone by the time the film came out, so not sure what you were going for there.

But hey, there's a simple solution to all of this: people know how active James Gunn is at responding to people on social media, so if they really believe there's any indication that Muschietti is out on The Brave and the Bold, they're more than welcome to ask him!

 

[Invader Joker]

What folks are saying is that he's no more solely liable for the film's box office failure than Gunn being the sole reason for The Suicide Squad being a box office failure (again, also due to incompetency and the day and date release from Warners). And of course Muschietti spent more time working on the film than others- he's the director who actually saw it through to completion! If you want to compare his tenure to Rick Famuyiwa or Seth Grahame-Smith, go for it, but that's a pretty easy win for Muschietti as far as who worked on it longer. Who else would've spent longer time on it? Anyone involved from previous regimes besides Ezra was long gone by the time the film came out, so not sure what you were going for there.

What a confusing point considering that my point is that The Flash was ****. TSS was not **** and was better received by critics and audiences; hell, if not for the day and date release I don't know how much it'd have made, but it's not crazy to think it'd have made more than The Flash since The Flash made so little. Of course no one would blame TSS on Gunn, it was a great movie after all. The Flash on the other hand was a bad movie that was received badly on top of making zero dollars. So what exactly are you arguing? Muschietti was supposed to bring the quality to the movie, and at least you know, make it look good and he didn't. He made a bad movie with the worst visuals of any CBM in the last 10 years. And he did so not because he was rushed, since he was given a full 18 months to work on post production. 18 months and he still proved to be beyond incompetent in a way that clearly affected the final product and its reception.

And Gunn isn't gonna say **** about Muschietti at the moment. He hasn't said **** about him in months; they're more than likely gonna wait till the strikes are over so they can go on searching his replacement properly.

Not to mention this whole babyfying of Muschietti of "oh no poor andy his movie must've been meddled " is absolute BS seeing how not only did he claim the movie as his own entirely, but again, there are zero reports to the contrary. The Flash Film News account which is closely linked to the production stated as such, and so have the trades, and so have the test-screening plot description which paint an image of a film that was identical to the one in theaters. The only thing, and I repeat, the only thing that got changed was the last 2 minutes in the ending. There were no extensive reshoots besides that, only pickup stuff. Not to mention his incompetence in this movie is one of which you can see traces in IT Chapter Two and Mamá.

 

[Boom]

I mean at some point this seems like a tired debate, guys. Andy Muschetti is the director of this movie until he's not. Perhaps our energies would be best spent on discussing this movie with the current talent attached to it.

 

[solidsnake86]

Truthfully, given the state of things, I am questioning if this movie happens at all. I was surprised to see the tracking of the Marvels. Regardless of your opinion of the first movie, it made a lot of money. To see it drop so drastically, I truly think the general audience is losing interest in superhero films. You will always have your premium characters but even batman has his limits.

Does WBD invest their money in a competing batman film?

Very tough decision ahead for everyone involved. I think there has to be a reason for this movie to exist and I'm not sure the "bat family" is a good enough one.

 

[Invader Joker]

Truthfully, given the state of things, I am questioning if this movie happens at all. I was surprised to see the tracking of the Marvels. Regardless of your opinion of the first movie, it made a lot of money. To see it drop so drastically, I truly think the general audience is losing interest in superhero films. You will always have your premium characters but even batman has his limits.

Does WBD invest their money in a competing batman film?

Very tough decision ahead for everyone involved. I think there has to be a reason for this movie to exist and I'm not sure the "bat family" is a good enough one.

Out of the DCU slate this is one of the few films it'd be 100% worth to spend on since Batman has proven to be their only profitable character so far. They just need to get a better director. It's because of superhero fatigue that this film should be made, they should make it the best version of what it could be, and it should be a priority for them. They kick off a new cinematic universe with a great Batman film and a great Superman film and they might be back on track.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Out of the DCU slate this is one of the few films it'd be 100% worth to spend on since Batman has proven to be their only profitable character so far. They just need to get a better director. It's because of superhero fatigue that this film should be made, they should make it the best version of what it could be, and it should be a priority for them. They kick off a new cinematic universe with a great Batman film and a great Superman film and they might be back on track.

That still feels so inherently, boringly cynical that it's hard to work up any interest or enthusiasm in it, IMO. I'm not even particularly disagreeing with you from a logistical point of view, it's just hard to be remotely interested in a movie that exists solely to tick a box on a checklist for a new shared universe when there is already a successful, functional and much more exciting Batman franchise going. One that will, inevitably, have a lot more integrity to it. These movies are all made for cynical reasons but this whole enterprise feels a little extra vacantly mercenary.

 

[BatsAndNights]

That still feels so inherently, boringly cynical that it's hard to work up any interest or enthusiasm in it, IMO. I'm not even particularly disagreeing with you from a logistical point of view, it's just hard to be remotely interested in a movie that exists solely to tick a box on a checklist for a new shared universe when there is already a successful, functional and much more exciting Batman franchise going. One that will, inevitably, have a lot more integrity to it. These movies are all made for cynical reasons but this whole enterprise feels a little extra vacantly mercenary.

It's sorta paradoxical. Because that's exactly what you need to do, but you have to do it almost unintentionally as a side effect rather than that be your main objective. Your main objective, instead, being to just...make a really damn good movie.

Which is exactly what The Batman did. And I don't see Andy being good enough to make lightning strike twice.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

I understand that it'll be a more heightened "fantasy" Batman but it is still inherently overkill as far as I'm concerned. Like, if they were doing a more functional and well executed version of the plan where Keaton stepped back into the role or did something super interesting like have Dick be Batman then I'd be all over it but ultimately I don't need a second Batman franchise no matter how "Different" it is. I barely needed another Batman series to begin with, if The Batman hadn't been as great as it was I'd have preferred to not revisit Bruce as Batman again for a long, long time and do Beyond or something similar instead. Feels like having two James Bond franchises running in parallel, one of which will inevitably be the classier and more respectable one.

 

[Invader Joker]

That still feels so inherently, boringly cynical that it's hard to work up any interest or enthusiasm in it, IMO. I'm not even particularly disagreeing with you from a logistical point of view, it's just hard to be remotely interested in a movie that exists solely to tick a box on a checklist for a new shared universe when there is already a successful, functional and much more exciting Batman franchise going. One that will, inevitably, have a lot more integrity to it. These movies are all made for cynical reasons but this whole enterprise feels a little extra vacantly mercenary.

It IS cynical but again, let's not pretend that the initial conceit of any previous Batman film was any less cynical lol Even the idea of making a new gritty dark standalone Batman trilogy was probably pitched as them trying to strike again the lightning they struck with the Nolanverse. And it could've easily gone horribly wrong if it hadn't been Matt at the helm

It's all about who gets behind the camera at the end of the day. Into the Spiderverse also sounded like an extremely cynical move by Sony and it ended up being one of the best superhero films.

It Andy gets kicked out and replaced by someone great, I see no reason this film couldn't be as good or even better than The Batman.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

It IS cynical but again, let's not pretend that the initial conceit of any previous Batman film was any less cynical lol Even the idea of making a new gritty dark standalone Batman trilogy was probably pitched as them trying to strike again the lightning they struck with the Nolanverse. And it could've easily gone horribly wrong if it hadn't been Matt at the helm

It's all about who gets behind the camera at the end of the day. Into the Spiderverse also sounded like an extremely cynical move by Sony and it ended up being one of the best superhero films.

It Andy gets kicked out and replaced by someone great, I see no reason this film couldn't be as good or even better than The Batman.

Absolutely not going to happen. This is not the kind of project that attracts that level of talent, nor is it the kind of talent they've been looking at for any of these movies. I suspect Andy will probably be replaced by someone less overtly disastrous but the fact this was project was conceived with Andy in mind says a lot. Apart from Mangold they seem to be looking at fairly middling directors who have some degree of name recognition to create hype around their hiring even if they haven't done anything worthwhile in years - see: Matthew Vaughn having at least been the first choice on Authority.

It's for sure cynical, I think the only DC stuff that anyone in the GA is all that interested in are projects that remind them of TDK, but it is absolutely less cynical than Brave and the Bold which exists literally just because it has to exist to justify their desperate, endless thirst to be the MCU.

 

[Invader Joker]

Absolutely not going to happen. This is not the kind of project that attracts that level of talent, nor is it the kind of talent they've been looking at for any of these movies. I suspect Andy will probably be replaced by someone less overtly disastrous but the fact this was project was conceived with Andy in mind says a lot. Apart from Mangold they seem to be looking at fairly middling directors who have some degree of name recognition to create hype around their hiring even if they haven't done anything worthwhile in years - see: Matthew Vaughn having at least been the first choice on Authority.

It's for sure cynical, I think the only DC stuff that anyone in the GA is all that interested in are projects that remind them of TDK, but it is absolutely less cynical than Brave and the Bold which exists literally just because it has to exist to justify their desperate, endless thirst to be the MCU.

If I recall correctly, you have agreed with me in the past that Dan Trachtenberg seems like a reasonable choice for this. Bearing that in mind, Trachtenberg right now is not far off at all from Matt Reeves 10 years ago, so I don't exactly understand your insistence it'd be entirely impossible to get someone on the level of Reeves or even close. Hell, even Reeves himself originally signed onto The Batman when it was still DCEU and Affleck.

And even if it's not someone like Reeves, it could be someone closer to a Gunn-type which also seems reasonably likely for this and also could do a kick-ass movie.

Also as great as Matt is, let's not pretend that he is the end all be all in terms of screenwriting, and neither is Mattson. The prospect of them getting a cool efficient screenwriter and making a cool script is also not one that seems unlikely at all.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

If I recall correctly, you have agreed with me in the past that Dan Trachtenberg seems like a reasonable choice for this. Bearing that in mind, Trachtenberg right now is not far off at all from Matt Reeves 10 years ago, so I don't exactly understand your insistence it'd be entirely impossible to get someone on the level of Reeves or even close. Hell, even Reeves himself originally signed onto The Batman when it was still DCEU and Affleck.

And even if it's not someone like Reeves, it could be someone closer to a Gunn-type which also seems reasonably likely for this and also could do a kick-ass movie.

Also as great as Matt is, let's not pretend that he is the end all be all in terms of screenwriting, and neither is Mattson. The prospect of them getting a cool efficient screenwriter and making a cool script is also not one that seems unlikely at all.

Trachtenberg is a good director and a perfectly sufficient, realistic choice but he’s only comparable to where Reeves was ten years ago because at that point he was mostly known for Cloverfield which isn’t one of his finer moments.

Reeves isn’t the be all end all by any means. But he did have the massive pedigree of directing, in my opinion, the best franchise movies of the 2010s with his Apes movies.

 

[Invader Joker]

Trachtenberg is a good director and a perfectly sufficient, realistic choice but he’s only comparable to where Reeves was ten years ago because at that point he was mostly known for Cloverfield which isn’t one of his finer moments.

Reeves isn’t the be all end all by any means. But he did have the massive pedigree of directing, in my opinion, the best franchise movies of the 2010s with his Apes movies.

Yeah and you'd have never guessed he'd be able to direct the Apes films based on Cloverfield and Let Me In. Gunn probably isn't exactly gonna get a "Matt Reeves in 2017 type" for this, mostly because there aren't any directors that are really comparable to that, but he can totally get an efficient, smart and promising genre director that can use this movie to show their full potential and become what Matt became after the Apes films or what Gunn became after Guardians.

 

[Invader Joker]

And hell, not gonna lie, as much as I love Reeves, once again: The idea of getting a screenwriter or team of screenwriters that's as good (and perhaps even better) as Reeves, Tomlin and Craig is not far fetched at all. Even if Gunn decided to go mega-lazy with directors choices and go for Sam Raimi or something, a great script coupled with a director that knows how to execute it might be enough.

 

[emielaen]

How fun is this sub getting

 

[Eddie Dean]

And hell, not gonna lie, as much as I love Reeves, once again: The idea of getting a screenwriter or team of screenwriters that's as good (and perhaps even better) as Reeves, Tomlin and Craig is not far fetched at all. Even if Gunn decided to go mega-lazy with directors choices and go for Sam Raimi or something, a great script coupled with a director that knows how to execute it might be enough.

Why would any director want to direct a movie that only will be compared to another very successful movie featuring the same character that is running at the same and will always be in the shadow of?

 

[Invader Joker]

Why would any director want to direct a movie that only will be compared to another very successful movie featuring the same character that is running at the same and will always be in the shadow of?

Because it's Batman, it'd probably pay well and a lot of directors love Batman, not to mention it's a great opportunity because if it succeeds the upside is massive. It's a risk but making any movie is a risk and there are probably several good directors that'd happily take this risk. Hell, Raimi said he'd jump on the opportunity, and if someone as seasoned as him (and that's barely directing now) would, of course there are other good directors out there that would too.

 

[Boom]

This may be assumptive on my part, but I don't see a huge demand of A-list talent salivating at the prospect of making a more comic-book-y version of Batman that is meant to be a part of a shared universe. Especially when, as others have noted, there is another widely successful version of Batman running concurrently.

We know Sam Raimi has openly expressed interest in Batman, and he's probably the closest thing I can think of to an A-lister that would embrace the fantastic and weird aspects of the mythology without reservation. But filmmakers like Denis Villeneuve? They're not touching this.

 

[Invader Joker]

This may be assumptive on my part, but I don't see a huge demand of A-list talent salivating at the prospect of making a more comic-book-y version of Batman that is meant to be a part of a shared universe. Especially when, as others have noted, there is another widely successful version of Batman running concurrently.

We know Sam Raimi has openly expressed interest in Batman, and he's probably the closest thing I can think of to an A-lister. But filmmakers like Villeneuve? They're not touching this.

Thats why I havent mentioned Villenueve lol And they don't need A-list talent. They just need someone that could become A-list or a great genre filmmaker on their own right, like Trachtenberg who again, is not that far off from 2012 Matt Reeves.

Although even then if we're talking A-list I could see someone like Chad Stahelski being intrigued by the prospect so...

Point is this movie doesn't need a condecorated auteur with massive credits under their belt to be great.

 

[solidsnake86]

It doesn't need an auteur director. It needs a purpose to exist and I'm not sure the fantasy batman and bat family justify it. If you look at the batman franchise as a whole, Burton to Schumacher was a series of diminishing returns that focused on visuals over story and leaned into the fantasy element. It also did a lot of damage to the character that it laid dormant for years.

At a minimum they need to wait until Reeves finishes as they run the risk of damaging the brand overall. It would be crazy to put resources into two different versions of batman. If the TBATB comes out and is a dud, you have sabatoged the shared universe, confused audiences with two batman, and probably damaged the Reeves series in the process.

I always go back to that variety story where they said Pattinson was joining the DCU. It came from a trade and I personally think that would be the goal to work in a well received batman into a larger universe. But before announcing anything like that, I would want to see a superman movie come out that actually is a hit before attaching a successful batman to it.

Then again, I have been around long enough to know that WB doesn't really know what it's doing. Lol.

 

[Boom]

An alternative solution is to restructure Brave and the Bold as a limited series on Max. Though I'm not sure if the television rights for Batman are still tied up with Fox or not.

Reeves Batman - film
Gunn Batman - television

The trade off is they'd have to scale back BotB to accommodate a television budget, but it's feasible.

 

[Eddie Dean]

Just have Gunn Batman only appear in crossover movies and if the reaction to that version is popular enough he can get a solo movie while Pattinson is wrapping up. Easy.

 

[Invader Joker]

It doesn't need an auteur director. It needs a purpose to exist and I'm not sure the fantasy batman and bat family justify it. If you look at the batman franchise as a whole, Burton to Schumacher was a series of diminishing returns that focused on visuals over story and leaned into the fantasy element. It also did a lot of damage to the character that it laid dormant for years.

It has a reason to exist: DC needs it to exist because to establish their new DCU they need heavy hitters and Batman is the heaviest of then all. Who else are you gonna rely on? Swamp Thing which at best will make 200 million dollars?

Is it cynical? Maybe but every single Batman movie has been born of a cynical instinct first so it can still work with the right talent attached.

An alternative solution is to restructure Brave and the Bold as a limited series on Max. Though I'm not sure if the television rights for Batman are still tied up with Fox or not.

Reeves Batman - film
Gunn Batman - television

The trade off is they'd have to scale back BotB to accommodate a television budget, but it's feasible.

It's not a bad option and a Bat Family TV show could be pretty cool but it does present some problems:
1. The whole point of a cinematic universe financially is so that individual characters are first introduced to audiences through their own films so they get attached to them and follow them onto crossovers. I'm skeptical enough people would watch a streaming show to then follow this Batman to a JL movie, but it is Batman so it's possible.
2. What makes the situation kinda awkward is that you do a TV show and then a couple years later you gotta do a solo DCU Batman movie regardless once the Reevesverse ends so it's essentially just doing a TV show while waiting to do the movie and who knows if that'd work out.

 

[Invader Joker]

Just have Gunn Batman only appear in crossover movies and if the reaction to that version is popular enough he can get a solo movie while Pattinson is wrapping up. Easy.

That defeats the entire purpose of doing a cinematic universe in the first place since no one will care about that Batman. Not to mention, once again, the DCU needs a solo Batman movie because he's the only golden goose they have and their brand is in the trash. You can't rely on Supergirl, Authority and Swamp Thing to establish this universe, that's just asking for a disaster.