Michael Keaton in talks to return as Batman

[thecolorsblend]

Word is that Ezra Miller won't be retained going forward.

Really? But he seems like such a nice guy!

/s

Not a prediction, but just thinking aloud - what if we're seeing the forced closure of the DCEU right now?

At this point, it's probably best to just scrap the DCEU altogether, let Pattinson be his own unique separate thing and create a new (but Batmanless) shared DC universe for film with none of the barnacles of the past getting in the way.

I mean, yes, that means throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Gadot and Momoa (both of whom seem largely adored in their roles) can be let go and replaced with other actors because the message must be This Is New.

Of course, I sort of wonder if even that might be a Band-Aid on a bullet wound since (I think) the comic book craze is on its last legs. But if this genre has any life left in it at all and if WB wants to profit by it, now is the time to make big decisions. Fortune favors the bold and after all these decades of chaos with a side of mismanagement, it's high time for some real leadership to step in and make the hard decisions.

[The Joker]

Really? But he seems like such a nice guy!

/s

Turns out, gambling on Ezra Miller not being on trial for grooming/GTA/Ect the same very month "The Flash" would be released is a bad bet.

At this point, it's probably best to just scrap the DCEU altogether, let Pattinson be his own unique separate thing and create a new (but Batmanless) shared DC universe for film with none of the barnacles of the past getting in the way.

I mean, yes, that means throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Gadot and Momoa (both of whom seem largely adored in their roles) can be let go and replaced with other actors because the message must be This Is New.

Yeah, I don't really foresee that happening. Anything is possible, but that's a long shot, and one hell of a unenviable task. Batfleck was brought back for a specific reason that we're currently not privy to. Gadot is this generation's Wonder Woman, and you don't get rid of the guy who single handedly did for the perception of Aquaman what Robert Downey Jr. did for Iron Man. Cavill? That message was already recently sent loud and clear. It's WBD's folly if they choose to stick their heads in the sand (much like the Hamada's crew) when it comes to the DCEU.

Course, hey, a full blown reboot could work? Or it could very well succeed into a absolute failure ala New52 Electric Boogaloo. Choose wisely.

Right now, I've taken the position that anything seemingly inexplicable that WB does needs to be viewed in the lens of new management coming in and taking out the trash. If there wasn't a merger with Discovery, "Batgirl" would undoubtedly still be coming out after extensive and expensive reshoots, because WB already spent millions on the project, not finishing it would just be wasting that money (you know, classic sunk cost fallacy).

Discovery, alternatively, did not pay 70 million to fund this movie. In their view, every dollar they put into it is a dollar lost. Therefore, they have literally zero qualms about shelving it.

The negative thing about "Batgirl" and possibly "The Flash", is once a project is written off in this fashion, WBD would not legally be allowed to release it, period, since WBD would have essentially functionally declared it the equivalent of broken equipment. You would pretty much need some insider to release a workprint/torrent for audiences to see what exactly they were....

[The Dark Knight]

At this point, it's probably best to just scrap the DCEU altogether, let Pattinson be his own unique separate thing and create a new (but Batmanless) shared DC universe for film with none of the barnacles of the past getting in the way.

I say throw it all out through the bathroom window which is no longer protected by a silver spoon. Momoa, Gadot and the others can suck their thumb and wonder by the banks of their own lagoon. DC works best when they're delivering self contained live action films, and they can do it. The Batman and JOKER are proof. Those properties are what need to be protected and elevated. If I were in charge I'd abandon the shared universe altogether. Or not rush in to it. I'm sad Keaton's return had to be during this particular timeline. But it is what it is.

[The Laughing Fish]

At this point, it's probably best to just scrap the DCEU altogether, let Pattinson be his own unique separate thing and create a new (but Batmanless) shared DC universe for film with none of the barnacles of the past getting in the way.

I mean, yes, that means throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Gadot and Momoa (both of whom seem largely adored in their roles) can be let go and replaced with other actors because the message must be This Is New.

Yeah, I don't really foresee that happening. Anything is possible, but that's a long shot, and one hell of a unenviable task. Batfleck was brought back for a specific reason that we're currently not privy to. Gadot is this generation's Wonder Woman, and you don't get rid of the guy who single handedly did for the perception of Aquaman what Robert Downey Jr. did for Iron Man. Cavill? That message was already recently sent loud and clear. It's WBD's folly if they choose to stick their heads in the sand (much like the Hamada's crew) when it comes to the DCEU.

Course, hey, a full blown reboot could work? Or it could very well succeed into a absolute failure ala New52 Electric Boogaloo. Choose wisely.

I agree, and let's get real: there is no way that WBD would reboot the entire DC shared film universe without Batman - the most popular character in their IP. Big money would be left behind on the table if they were to do that.

Besides, if we take David Zaslav's word for granted, he has gone on record wanting more content from DC's Trinity, and seemingly implied he wants to sell more films with them together. I'm not saying it's guaranteed that Cavill, Affleck and Gadot are going to reunite, but what I am saying is he won't omit Batman to satisfy agendas of a self-contained reboot.

I think the reasons for Affleck's participation in Aquaman is going to be critical.

[Travesty]

Burn it to the ground!

[The Dark Knight]

I'm someone who believes in the big screen experience for a variety of reasons. So Zaslav's view that if it's made for streaming it's being karate chopped is music to my ears. I don't care how much money was invested in making the movie - Batgirl originating as a direct to streaming product cheapened its reputation in my eyes. Zaslav made a point about that thought too - "[being released in cinemas] builds a brand so when it does go to a streaming service there's a view that the title has a higher quality that benefits the streaming service." This is a big win for directors like Nolan who hated the rush to streaming. It was a rabbit hole that wasn't going to lead anywhere good.

[eledoremassis02]

Keaton (?) in Batgirl
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FZZV9_-XoAETyPX?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Also a small glimpse

[eledoremassis02]

https://www.joblo.com/batgirl-footage-deleted/

well then....

[thecolorsblend]

Deleted from, like, some FTP server is one thing. Doesn't sound like the footage itself was deleted. I'm not even sure how legal that would be, honestly.

[eledoremassis02]

Deleted from, like, some FTP server is one thing. Doesn't sound like the footage itself was deleted. I'm not even sure how legal that would be, honestly.

Sounds like that or they're just locked out. The idea of archiving it with their phone sounds kinda funny.