The Brave and the Bold News and Discussion Thread

[Boom]

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.

There's that too. Allows for Batman to maintain an aura of mystery within the JL.

 

[Invader Joker]

There's that too. Allows for Batman to maintain an aura of mystery within the JL.

And it doesn't help DC financially or brand wise at all when it most needs it. It's a bad idea.

Brave and the Bold is not ideal but it's the best bad option they have.

 

[Boom]

If you say so, Invader. I frankly don't have energy to debate it with you.

 

[Invader Joker]

A year ago I was screaming about all the stuff you guys are now talking about. In fact, when this movie was first announced, I *****ed about it since I thought it was a horrible idea. And while the downsides are still present, the performance of DC films this year does changes things a lot as it has taught us two things:

1. Audiences don't care for DC and are not keen to go out there and support new characters or movies made by them. This rules out the idea that you can create a new DCU based primarily around heroes that aren't Superman, Batman and Wonser Woman.
2. A Batman no one cares about introduced as a secondary character in someone else's movie doesn't help that movie at all. This rules out the idea that "well maybe if we just put Batman as a secondary character that'll do enough to help x movie out...". It won't.

Under these circumstances you are left with pretty much the only option being create a banger Superman movie and a banger Batman movie to introduce the new DCU and hope that gives things enough momentum so people trust DC more and things get back on track.

 

[Eddie Dean]

It’s cool to have a discussion where no matter what you’re wrong

 

[Invader Joker]

I mean it's all a bit of a moot point anyway since the movie has already been announced, it's happening and Gunn has been given pretty much zero reason this year to not go forward with it and instead all the reason to do so since it's the one thing in his slate with the most potential to make money because it's Batman (just ditching its terrible direcotr)

 

[SwordOfMorning]

And it doesn't help DC financially or brand wise at all when it most needs it. It's a bad idea.

Brave and the Bold is not ideal but it's the best bad option they have.

I mean, they could stop banging their heads against the wall trying to make a shared universe happen. It’s never gonna work out for them, just a pure definition of insanity scenario.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

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.

Hard, hard disagree. An exciting new take on Batman introduced as a supporting character played by a great actor in a good movie would create a bunch of mystique potentially and help hype up a solo.

You’re also arguing from a different POV than most of us are I think: I don’t give a **** about the brand. The stuff I’m actually interested on this slate is the more obscure stuff that I suspect most of which won’t happen or won’t make money. I’m only interested in the creative side of this. I understand their cynical, mechanical motivations for pumping out another Batman movie - I just don’t care.

If you’re having to endless rely upon Batman to hype up the shared universe then you’re ****ed from day one. If anything one of the major good points of Gunn’s slate is that it isn’t aggressively Batman centric and feels a lot more unique.

 

[Invader Joker]

I mean, they could stop banging their heads against the wall trying to make a shared universe happen. It’s never gonna work out for them, just a pure definition of insanity scenario.

You can say that and maybe time will prove you right but they've already made their bet. They created an entire division to support a cinematic universe, they hired James Gunn to do it and James Gunn is already a year into developing it,, and they are investing heavily on it with even developing new soundstages in Leavesden. That is also a moot point right now.

Hard, hard disagree. An exciting new take on Batman introduced as a supporting character played by a great actor in a good movie would create a bunch of mystique potentially and help hype up a solo.

The return of an old take on Batman that people loved didn't have that effect. Why would a new Batman no one knows anything about and no one cares about would have a different effect? We've tried this whole "add Batman to a movie, even as a secondary character he'll be enough to pull people in" twice and it failed twice. Now, both JL and The Flash had their own reasons they failed, but the presence of Batman simply didn't seem to move the needle one way or the other and right now it's about the worst time imaginable to take that bet for a third time.

You’re also arguing from a different POV than most of us are I think: I don’t give a **** about the brand. The stuff I’m actually interested on this slate is the more obscure stuff that I suspect most of which won’t happen or won’t make money. I’m only interested in the creative side of this. I understand their cynical, mechanical motivations for pumping out another Batman movie - I just don’t care.

If you’re having to endless rely upon Batman to hype up the shared universe then you’re ****ed from day one. If anything one of the major good points of Gunn’s slate is that it isn’t aggressively Batman centric and feels a lot more unique.

I mean, if you don't care about the brand, then there really isn't a single downside to doing this movie since the only real bad consequence it could have if it goes badly is affecting the Batman brand. And well, it's not just relying on Batman, they have to rely on both Batman and Superman. I agree it isn't ideal but look at DC currently, they are indeed ****ed from day 1, they're just trying to un-**** themselves.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

You can say that and maybe time will prove you right but they've already made their bet. They created an entire division to support a cinematic universe, they hired James Gunn to do it and James Gunn is already a year into developing it,, and they are investing heavily on it with even developing new soundstages in Leavesden. That is also a moot point right now.

And I think there is a very good chance Legacy massively underperforms and they go into crazed panic mode, most of these projects slipping into development hell. This is all air. This is all hypothetical. We've seen this movie before. Your response to this will be "Well, the one least likely to go into development hell is Batman" which might be true but is also so absurdly lame. If there really is no chance for DC characters who aren't Bat related to survive on their own terms then the whole venture is probably a waste of time.

The return of an old take on Batman that people loved didn't have that effect. Why would a new Batman no one knows anything about and no one cares about would have a different effect? We've tried this whole "add Batman to a movie, even as a secondary character he'll be enough to pull people in" twice and it failed twice. Now, both JL and The Flash had their own reasons they failed, but the presence of Batman simply didn't seem to move the needle one way or the other and right now it's about the worst time imaginable to take that bet for a third time.

The Flash was also bad. Its utilization of Keaton was incredibly poor and might as well have not even been him to begin with. The Flash is such an insanely unique disaster. If the GA can get super intrigued by and into Wonder Woman from her brief appearance in ****in' BVS, one suspects they can do the same for Batman.

I mean, if you don't care about the brand, then there really isn't a single downside to doing this movie since the only real bad consequence it could have if it goes badly is affecting the Batman brand. And well, it's not just relying on Batman, they have to rely on both Batman and Superman. I agree it isn't ideal but look at DC currently, they are indeed ****ed from day 1, they're just trying to un-**** themselves.

I mean, the downside is that it is a potential stumbling block for their already successful and well respected Batman franchise. A franchise which, frankly, has a far greater chance of being at least a mildly successful shared universe than the DCU does. It creates an inherent potential messiness and also opens up conflict between the two parties over who gets to do what with which characters. I know they're talking a big game that everything is fine, maybe it is, but it is clearly not an ideal scenario. That's part of why I find this movies existence is so absurdly bankrupt and lame: they're already winning with Batman. They've laid the foundations for it, it has enormous room to grow but in the current cinematic climate that isn't enough - there has to be another one so he can run show up in the Justice League, there has to be another one to tick a box on a checklist to accomplish something they've been trying and failing to accomplish since Green Lantern.

 

[Invader Joker]

And I think there is a very good chance Legacy massively underperforms and they go into crazed panic mode, most of these projects slipping into development hell. This is all air. This is all hypothetical. We've seen this movie before. Your response to this will be "Well, the one least likely to go into development hell is Batman" which might be true but is also so absurdly lame. If there really is no chance for DC characters who aren't Bat related to survive on their own terms then the whole venture is probably a waste of time.

Even if Legacy underperforms, chances are that Brave and the Bold will already be on its way to production by then so I'd imagine they' still want to give it a shot since, once again, it's the most likely movie in that entire slate to make money.

The Flash was also bad. Its utilization of Keaton was incredibly poor and might as well have not even been him to begin with. The Flash is such an insanely unique disaster. If the GA can get super intrigued by and into Wonder Woman from her brief appearance in ****in' BVS, one suspects they can do the same for Batman.

They got intrigued by Wonder Woman when she got introduced in a movie literally called Batman v. Superman lol Where exactly would Batman be introduced here? A Justice League movie that'd once again be a giant financial disaster because it was, once again, done prematurely?

I mean, the downside is that it is a potential stumbling block for their already successful and well respected Batman franchise. A franchise which, frankly, has a far greater chance of being at least a mildly successful shared universe than the DCU does. It creates an inherent potential messiness and also opens up conflict between the two parties over who gets to do what with which characters. I know they're talking a big game that everything is fine, maybe it is, but it is clearly not an ideal scenario. That's part of why I find this movies existence is so absurdly bankrupt and lame: they're already winning with Batman. They've laid the foundations for it, it has enormous room to grow but in the current cinematic climate that isn't enough - there has to be another one so he can run show up in the Justice League, there has to be another one to tick a box on a checklist to accomplish something they've been trying and failing to accomplish since Green Lantern.

Oh please. The Reevesverse is going to be fine. By the time that Brave and the Bold releases, the Reevesverse will have 1 movie left to go. If The Batman Part 2 does well no way they are gonna be cancelling Part 3 just because Brave and the Bold flopped if it does flop. And if The Penguin and Arkham shows do well they'll keep pumping out whatever spin-offs Matt Reeves wants, it's a non-issue. I could understand if Brave and the Bold was coming before Part 2 but it's not, it's coming right before when the Reeves trilogy ends.

 

[Eddie Dean]

The audience doesn't care about other DC characters except for... Aquaman which was one of the highest grossing wb movies ever? I guess that doesn't count. The problem with Green Lantern, Flash or Justice League isn't that audiences aren't into those characters, it's that those are awful movies with very publicly known troubled productions. The Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman 84 where both released during a global pandemic when people could watch them for no extra charge on streaming platforms. The reason why Batman movies have been successful is because they are uhhh good movies that are well made and with thought put into them. That might be a good strategy for other dc movies too, if you think about.

And to put things into perspective, both Superman Returns and MoS outperformed Batman Begins. What's the difference between those franchises? One WB fostered and let a director make an extremally successful followup and the other they panicked and threw everything away or spammed Batman.

 

[Invader Joker]

The audience doesn't care about other DC characters except for... Aquaman which was one of the highest grossing wb movies ever? I guess that doesn't count. The problem with Green Lantern, Flash or Justice League isn't that audiences aren't into those characters, it's that those are awful movies with very publicly known troubled productions.

Maybe there'd be more reason to use that argument nowadays if not for the horrible box office of Shazam 2 which opened lower than the original and did less than half of what the original did despite the first one being well received. Or the horrible box office of Blue Beetle despite that film being actually well received by audiences and critics. And everyone's expecting Aquaman 2 to flop too and it just might.
Also:
Opening weekend determines how interested an audience was in a movie, the legs determined how much they liked it.
If this was a case where the DC films that have come out had huge opening weekends but then they fell down a cliff, maybe there'd be a point to this argument, but they had horrible opening weekends coupled with disastrous legs. They opened so badly that no matter how they legged out they were gonna flop. They could've been masterpieces and they would have still flopped based on opening weekend alone.

The reason why Batman movies have been successful is because they are uhhh good movies that are well made and with thought put into them. That might be a good strategy for other dc movies too, if you think about.

Right. Audiences have been conditioned to associate Batman with quality, which translates into huge opening weekends, which then is carried out by good legs so it can make a lot of money. On the other hand, audiences have been conditioned to associate the average DC movie with being trash, so they open so low that there is no saving them. Hence why they need a strong foundation to build a new DCU, hence why that foundation has to be their most recognizable characters, hence why it has to be Batman, which is the only one they associate with quality and willing to give huge openings to.

And to put things into perspective, both Superman Returns and MoS outperformed Batman Begins. What's the difference between those franchises? One WB fostered and let a director make an extremally successful followup and the other they panicked and threw everything away or spammed Batman.

Not really sure what point you are trying to make here. Batman Begins was almost 20 years ago so the landscape was obviously much different, and BvS benefitted a lot from being partly a Batman movie, and it's something you can see reflected in the opening weekend box office as it was gigantic and if I recall correctly it's something like the 3rd highest opening weekend in WB's history.

 

[Eddie Dean]

How do you explain Aquaman grossing over a billion dollars in this theory?

 

[SwordOfMorning]

How do you explain Aquaman grossing over a billion dollars in this theory?

It’s almost like if you make a fun movie people like starring a very popular actor that matters more than anything else!

 

[Invader Joker]

How do you explain Aquaman grossing over a billion dollars in this theory?

It’s almost like if you make a fun movie people like starring a very popular actor that matters more than anything else!

Aquaman is a very specific case of coming out in the right places on the right time.
The superhero genre was at its highest, it was December which typically helps out a lot of films when it comes to legs, and also it was a spectacle film coming out during the holidays which for some reason does appeal to people a lot. It benefitted from the same reasons that Avatar and Avatar 2 were successes, people really like the experience of going to a big movie theatre to watch bright colorful sunny places during the winter, especially people in China.
It was lightning in a bottle, and again, Aquaman 2 might flop so it might not strike twice. And I know time flies by but, you know, Aquaman released 5 years ago so again, landscape is different. 4 months after Aquaman came out, Shazam came out and had a decent opening and a good box office, nowadays the genre and DC are so weak Shazam 2 opened terribly.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Shazam 2 also, you know, sucks.

 

[Eddie Dean]

So why can't DC make another big spectacle movie to release in December? That's not something you're only allowed to do only once.

 

[Invader Joker]

Shazam 2 also, you know, sucks.

Once again: Opening weekend indicates audience interest, legs indicate whether they liked it or not.
Whether it sucked or not is irrelevant, as it opened terribly (which again, it's pretty damning seeing how the first one was well received) and it'd have flopped regardless.

 

[Invader Joker]

So why can't DC make another big spectacle movie to release in December? That's not something you're only allowed to do only once.

They can release Brave and the Bold in December then!

 

[SwordOfMorning]

I am also broadly curious how receptive audiences are to a more cartoony Batman built around the central gag of ‘He has an evil son who stabs people’. Nothing in the world can convince me that the basic tone they’re aiming for isn’t PG-13 Kick Ass no matter how much they talk about Grant Morrison. Like, there’s a massive chance this movie involves fighting CG man bats with katanas.

 

[Eddie Dean]

Once again: Opening weekend indicates audience interest, legs indicate whether they liked it or not.
Whether it sucked or not is irrelevant, as it opened terribly (which again, it's pretty damning seeing how the first one was well received) and it'd have flopped regardless.

I think is sucking is maybe uuhhhh the most relevant thing? Wouldn't audience see the trailers and hear the buzz and think it sucks lol

 

[Invader Joker]

I think is sucking is maybe uuhhhh the most relevant thing? Wouldn't audience see the trailers and hear the buzz and think it sucks lol

Not in opening weekend, no. Plenty of films that have sucked and have been hated by audiences have had ridiculously big opening weekends. Example: BvS.

I am also broadly curious how receptive audiences are to a more cartoony Batman built around the central gag of ‘He has an evil son who stabs people’. Nothing in the world can convince me that the basic tone they’re aiming for isn’t PG-13 Kick Ass no matter how much they talk about Grant Morrison. Like, there’s a massive chance this movie involves fighting CG man bats with katanas.

Well that'll depend on them getting someone good behind the camera, which once again, it's not impossible! Andy Muschietti would make this the first movie in history to sell zero tickets but someone else can make it a hit.

 

[Eddie Dean]

I don't even understand anymore.

 

[emielaen]

Ya'll need some real news to chew on. This convo of Brave.. being pointless or not is boring.