The Daily Planet - Superman News and Speculation Thread (🚨TAG SPOILERS🚨)

[DKDetective]

That makes total sense if they’re naming the subsidiary.

As usual, I am in awe of your intellect!

Thanks, man! I like to think I didn't get the top grade in International Commercial Litigation back in law school for nothing!

 

[Mysteryman]

They do not.

They SHOULD!

 

[Gu3ree]

To be honest, I don't even think that the cinematography ITSELF looks bad in The Flash. It's the VFX work that's the problem in that movie. But alas...

EDIT:

And some effects shots are really cool, too:

The Flash Blu-ray

The Flash Blu-ray Release Date August 29, 2023. Blu-ray reviews, news, specs, ratings, screenshots. Cheap Blu-ray movies and deals.

www.blu-ray.com

The Flash 4K Blu-ray (4K Ultra HD + Digital 4K)

The Flash 4K Blu-ray Release Date August 29, 2023. Blu-ray reviews, news, specs, ratings, screenshots. Cheap Blu-ray movies and deals.

www.blu-ray.com

Anyway, not trying to open a can of worms here.


Yup. Pretty much. In the age of cookie cutter entertainment, it looks different. And good.

The visual effects were horrendous in most scenes. While visual effects aren't the core of the story for me, and I care more about the plot, some parts of the visual effects are essential to a movie or character, in Superman's case, it's flying. Superman needs to look like he's really flying, otherwise it won't work. No one would 'believe a man can fly', and in The Flash's case, Flash needs to look like he is really running at hyper speed, but he looked anything but that in his actual first movie. On another note though, bad effects aside, I did like the cinematography. It looked good for a DC movie. But looking back at why The Flash failed, story aside, I firmly believe it was ultimately because of Ezra Miller's bad reputation and the announcement of the DC reboot that destroyed this film at having any chance of success.

After rewatching The Flash, it looked like it was a good story that was messed up by James Gunn. I have to admit, every scene felt jumpy. Sometimes, it felt like every second or minute needed to be comedic. The film had a great plot and cool moments. Keaton's Batman was a great inclusion, but I think the cowl really degraded his presence. Miller's younger version of himself was irritating and really stupid. "Why's it so cold?" when he knew they were in the arctic. BAD WRITING. It wasn't even funny. That was probably not as bad as "brunch" though.

The bad things that stood out to me in the movie, were the costumes (Affleck's being the worst one, Keaton's cowl and Miller's main Flash suit...they messed up BIG TIME), the bad running effects, the rushed plot, and going back in time to the beginning--basically meaning none of what we watched develop in the story really mattered because Barry went back in time to undo all of it, except his father's surveillance footage. I thought it was weak to end the movie. I wish they had found a way to actually stop Zod and win somehow even if that meant somehow rewriting the future...it would still suck though because that would also mean 'Man of Steel' never happened. The conclusion was awful. George Clooney shows up and um...the open-ending, or incomplete ending sucked. It felt like a punch in the gut to the DCEU. To think we'd have Momoa's Aquaman back, and...Ezra...but Gunn erasing Cavill and Affleck, not giving a ***k. We know the original plan by Gunn was to keep Momoa, Levi and the infamous Ezra Miller...and Gal Gadot??? (confused)

 

[AndrewGilkison]

The visual effects were horrendous in most scenes. While visual effects aren't the core of the story for me, and I care more about the plot, some parts of the visual effects are essential to a movie or character, in Superman's case, it's flying. Superman needs to look like he's really flying, otherwise it won't work. No one would 'believe a man can fly', and in The Flash's case, Flash needs to look like he is really running at hyper speed, but he looked anything but that in his actual first movie. On another note though, bad effects aside, I did like the cinematography. It looked good for a DC movie. But looking back at why The Flash failed, story aside, I firmly believe it was ultimately because of Ezra Miller's bad reputation and the announcement of the DC reboot that destroyed this film at having any chance of success.

After rewatching The Flash, it looked like it was a good story that was messed up by James Gunn. I have to admit, every scene felt jumpy. Sometimes, it felt like every second or minute needed to be comedic. The film had a great plot and cool moments. Keaton's Batman was a great inclusion, but I think the cowl really degraded his presence. Miller's younger version of himself was irritating and really stupid. "Why's it so cold?" when he knew they were in the arctic. BAD WRITING. It wasn't even funny. That was probably not as bad as "brunch" though.

The bad things that stood out to me in the movie, were the costumes (Affleck's being the worst one, Keaton's cowl and Miller's main Flash suit...they messed up BIG TIME), the bad running effects, the rushed plot, and going back in time to the beginning--basically meaning none of what we watched develop in the story really mattered because Barry went back in time to undo all of it, except his father's surveillance footage. I thought it was weak to end the movie. I wish they had found a way to actually stop Zod and win somehow even if that meant somehow rewriting the future...it would still suck though because that would also mean 'Man of Steel' never happened. The conclusion was awful. George Clooney shows up and um...the open-ending, or incomplete ending sucked. It felt like a punch in the gut to the DCEU. To think we'd have Momoa's Aquaman back, and...Ezra...but Gunn erasing Cavill and Affleck, not giving a ***k. We know the original plan by Gunn was to keep Momoa, Levi and the infamous Ezra Miller...and Gal Gadot??? (confused)

The Flash was filmed long before Gunn took over DC.

In fact it was Walter Hamada who wanted to use The Flash as a way of soft-rebooting the DCEU. That was always the plan. Affleck's Batman was going to basically be replaced by Keaton's Batman (which is why Keaton's Batman was in Batgirl), and Cavill's Superman was going to be replaced by Sasha Calle's Supergirl.

 

[Lily Adler]

The Flash was filmed long before Gunn took over DC.

In fact it was Walter Hamada who wanted to use The Flash as a way of soft-rebooting the DCEU. That was always the plan. Affleck's Batman was going to basically be replaced by Keaton's Batman (which is why Keaton's Batman was in Batgirl), and Cavill's Superman was going to be replaced by Sasha Calle's Supergirl.

He just got stuck with marketing it.

 

[DCDAVE]

Good lord there are people who still believe Gunn had control of the DCEU. I see why certain segments of the fandom won’t let certain things go. Once Snyder left the Justice League the DCEU was in save mode. Cavill fans seem to not understand that at the end he was behind Gadet, Momoa, Affleck, and Esra when it came to actors in the DCEU. Cavill was a big reason why Superman is looked down on today. Snyder put Superman in a freezer for the Justice League movie.

 

[B]

From what I can remember reading Gunn's main impact he had over The Flash was the ending which was reportedly filmed/changed a few times because nobody really knew what was happening to the DCEU.

Keaton/Calle were apparently supposed to be present at the end in the saved/new universe, then Cavill/Gadot were added presumably because it appeared like Cavill was returning after the Black Adam ending & then finally it was changed to what we saw with the amusing, but nonsensical, Clooney cameo because Gunn decided to clean house, wipe the slate & needed to put a button on the DCEU.

 

[B]

He just got stuck with marketing it.

And if I recall he told us it was fantastic & that Muschietti had done a great job..

 

[dhandler01]

I didn't hate The Flash

 

[Lily Adler]

I didn't hate The Flash

 

[Gu3ree]

From what I can remember reading Gunn's main impact he had over The Flash was the ending which was reportedly filmed/changed a few times because nobody really knew what was happening to the DCEU.

Keaton/Calle were apparently supposed to be present at the end in the saved/new universe, then Cavill/Gadot were added presumably because it appeared like Cavill was returning after the Black Adam ending & then finally it was changed to what we saw with the amusing, but nonsensical, Clooney cameo because Gunn decided to clean house, wipe the slate & needed to put a button on the DCEU.

That's what I was referring to in my previous comment. It seems that decision by Gunn also extended to changing the ending with Michael Keaton's Batman as well. As we knew, Keaton was originally going to be the main Batman of the DCU or so it seemed...then they had Keaton's Batman killed off instead in The Flash...hence the reason Batgirl was canceled??

I didn't like the idea of Keaton being the new DCU main Batman despite Keaton being my favorite Batman of all time...but at his age with the other League members...? That would have felt off.

 

[Babillygunn]

That's what I was referring to in my previous comment. It seems that decision by Gunn also extended to changing the ending with Michael Keaton's Batman as well. As we knew, Keaton was originally going to be the main Batman of the DCU or so it seemed...then they had Keaton's Batman killed off instead in The Flash...hence the reason Batgirl was canceled??

I didn't like the idea of Keaton being the new DCU main Batman despite Keaton being my favorite Batman of all time...but at his age with the other League members...? That would have felt off.

Batgirl was cancelled because Zaslav is a turd who wanted to sacrifice the film for a tax write off. That cancellation had absolutely nothing to do with creative decisions. Much to the contrary, actually. It was the bottom line and nothing more.

 

[GreenKToo]

I didn't hate The Flash

It wasn't terrible, no. But, if they had recast, I believe it would have been better AND made more money.
Ezra was kryptonite. It was doomed from the start.

 

[Herolee10]

Personally, I'll never understand how spending millions of dollars in reshoots is ever considered a good business practice. You'd think that it would be better to take the loss without spending any more money as opposed to doing the opposite, thus needing the film to earn back more (which isn't guaranteed) in the box office in hopes of it at least breaking even.

 

[GreenKToo]

Personally, I'll never understand how spending millions of dollars in reshoots is ever considered a good business practice. You'd think that it would be better to take the loss without spending any more money as opposed to doing the opposite, thus needing the film to earn back more (which isn't guaranteed) in the box office in hopes of it at least breaking even.

They went full on panick mode.
I'll never understand them sticking with Ezra. It would have been cheaper in the long run to recast.

 

[Herolee10]

They went full on panick mode.
I'll never understand them sticking with Ezra. It would have been cheaper in the long run to recast.

I don't know about that. Given how Ezra is practically in every scene of the film, Warner Bros would need to reshoot the entire thing if they chose to recast Ezra.

I'm actually glad that Gunn (supposedly) plans out his movies in advance so that he doesn't require having to do any major reshoots later on.

 

[Lily Adler]

I don't know about that. Given how Ezra is practically in every scene of the film, Warner Bros would need to reshoot the entire thing if they chose to recast Ezra.

I'm actually glad that Gunn (supposedly) plans out his movies in advance so that he doesn't require having to do any major reshoots later on.

Too bad they couldn't reshoot the ending with a new Barry and he asks what the hell is going on in a Back to the Future fashion with Momoa as Lobo popping up.

 

[Karelia]

It wasn't terrible, no. But, if they had recast, I believe it would have been better AND made more money.
Ezra was kryptonite. It was doomed from the start.

Yeah, I wish they would have recast Barry for the movie. Ezra Miller never had a Barry Allen vibe to me ever.

 

[B]

I didn't hate The Flash

Nor did I to be fair I was only jesting, it certainly wasn't good, but it also in the same respect it wasn't bad enough were I'd compare it to some of the worst CBM's either which is the comparison's it often gets because of how poorly it did at the box office.

The movie was fighting against the grain once it became public knowledge that the DCEU was being rebooted by Gunn, who was then doing some promotional stuff for the film trying to tell people how great the film is for a universe he was effectively preparing the nails for the coffin for which was just a huge mess. Also Miller being an immense POS at the time I'm sure didn't help either.

 

[king666]

I didn't hate The Flash

Same. Barry's arc in that movie was pretty good imo. I had fun watching it. But damn the VFX were awful.

 

[J.Drangal]

My take on The Flash is that a lot of it would have worked better in animation: the comic alternative Barry, the “time sanctuary”, the scenes with the babies, the fight in the desert, and so on. But then, Keaton's Batman wouldn't have worked... but did it really work in the movie?
He's my favorite Batman, but arguably his role in the film could have been played by any Batman of the past.
Otherwise, I thought the film had a relatively functional skeleton in terms of the story and its main character's arc... but then again, that's the minimum. I don't think that's really something to celebrate...

Hot takes: labeled under a certain other studio and released a few years earlier, I'm pretty sure it would have been better perceived, because it really seems to use the same recipe (from what I remember, I haven't watched their movies in almost a decade, I must admit...).

 

[AndrewGilkison]

My take on The Flash is that a lot of it would have worked better in animation: the comic alternative Barry, the “time sanctuary”, the scenes with the babies, the fight in the desert, and so on. But then, Keaton's Batman wouldn't have worked... but did it really work in the movie?
He's my favorite Batman, but arguably his role in the film could have been played by any Batman of the past.
Otherwise, I thought the film had a relatively functional skeleton in terms of the story and its main character's arc... but then again, that's the minimum. I don't think that's really something to celebrate...

Hot takes: labeled under a certain other studio and released a few years earlier, I'm pretty sure it would have been better perceived, because it really seems to use the same recipe (from what I remember, I haven't watched their movies in almost a decade, I must admit...).

It did work better in animation.

 

[TheGDBatman]

I legitimately enjoyed The Flash. But I do agree that the CGI was extremely poor throughout the movie... and I found Ezra to be grating at times.

 

[Superark]

Definitely not trying to start a tribalism war with DC and Marvel, but after watching that Fantastic Four Trailer just now, it's hilarious to me if anyone honestly thinks that is going to draw the same hype as Gunn's Superman.

F4 is definitely going to move slots in July. And I say that as someone who is looking forward to seeing the film, even if it looks like every other Marvel film only with a 60's setting.

 

[Karelia]

Definitely not trying to start a tribalism war with DC and Marvel, but after watching that Fantastic Four Trailer just now, it's hilarious to me if anyone honestly thinks that is going to draw the same hype as Gunn's Superman.

F4 is definitely going to move slots in July. And I say that as someone who is looking forward to seeing the film, even if it looks like every other Marvel film only with a 60's setting.

I'm quite the normie with F4, trailer looked decent. I didn't get anymore hyped for it than I already was after watching the trailer though (which I'll be honest, not that excited for it.) It definitely was just a teaser trailer. It seems to have resonated with some of the more hardcore F4 fans, so I'm happy for them.