DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[TREK_GOD_1]

Opinion, not fact. The number of fans you believe in hating the Arrowverse has just as much people hating on the DC movies

The majority of CW's DC series had/have one, consistent trait about them: notoriously low ratings and negative critical responses for every reason I cited earlier.

I'd take the Arrowverse version of Flash or Superman over their DCEU counterparts without hesitation

...and you would be in the minority. There's no widespread call for Hoechlin's Superman to be moved to the DCEU movies, and the same appplies to Gustin. There's a reason for that, if one is honest with himself.

Conversely I suspect the DCEU version of Batgirl will be superior to the Batwoman show since there's really nowhere to go but up from the quality of that.

There you will get no argument. I've covered the endless failings of Batwoman throughout its run, with its 1st season being the one that enjoyed much potential--and the only one worth watching more than once.

Wait wait wait... why can't Whedon have that same defence? Honestly. There's obviously something wrong with him mentally as well that he can't seem to control. Otherwise he wouldn't make the choices he made.

No, his are chosen moral failings--which he's embraced and never backed away from for decades, while spewing lies to deny his acts. Miller's never exhibitied his recent behavioral issues before, so it appears as if it were motivated by some undisclosed stresser.

You're REALLY showing a strange sort of double standard here to defend every element of the DCEU, oddly even defending a person who physically assaulted a women with a chair 1 week before an arraignment for another crime.

Nope, but you're making a false equivalnency between someone who may have recently exhibited psychological issues and another who chose his lifestlye of numerous abuses. If one chooses to be all of what Whedon is, then it takes no leap to conclude that he is consciously corrupt, not ill. Essential difference--which is ignored by those who are using Miller as their fanboy-fuled cudgel agaisnt a franchise they cannot stand.

Perspective.

How about they're both awful for what they did and both have no excuses for the type of people they are. This isn't an either-or situation to protect the perfection of your precious jewel of a universe.

Do you really believe no one reads your posts for your favorite things?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I never said they needed it, just that it helps to make the characters' relationships more believable.

Again, all you're saying is that in the absence of actors not palling around off-set means a film's characters cannot be viewed as having beleivable realtionships. Where--exactly--are you getting that from?

And I'm not sure if the Bond example really works, since I was never under the impression that Bond and Leiter were supposed to be close friends who hung out all the time when they weren't on missions together.

I never mentioned Leiter at all. I mentioned actors Bernard Lee ("M") and Desmond Llewelyn ("Q") who both crafted believable relationships to Connery's Bond (no matter the nature of their character relationships), yet the actors were not palling around off-set. The same with McQueen and Hoffman who gave stellar perfomances / built a believable character relationship in Papillon, and on and on throughout film history.

This is not isolated to that period of the Bond franchise or films in general, and it works because that's the actor's job to make you believe it works.

I'm sorry, but I'd say a person, and again Miller is a they, not a he, who has been arrested for physically attacking people, repeatedly, is a lot worse than someone who's a just a jerk.

Yeah, because being a racist--which Whedon was accused of being--is just being a "jerk" (among his many failings). Preventing a young girl (Trachtenberg) from ever being in a room alone with him for an all too obvious implication (based on Whedon's known behavior) is just the result of Whedon...being a "jerk." Very, very interesting take, JD.

 

[crookeddy]

If the only racism allegation against Whedon is by Fisher, then I don't quite buy it. Consider the whole color correcting fiasco... Whedon seems to have been awful to all the other cast members too.

 

[JD]

Again, all you're saying is that in the absence of actors not palling around off-set means a film's characters cannot be viewed as having beleivable realtionships. Where--exactly--are you getting that from?

I never mentioned Leiter at all. I mentioned actors Bernard Lee ("M") and Desmond Llewelyn ("Q") who both crafted believable relationships to Connery's Bond (no matter the nature of their character relationships), yet the actors were not palling around off-set. The same with McQueen and Hoffman who gave stellar perfomances / built a believable character relationship in Papillon, and on and on throughout film history.
This is not isolated to that period of the Bond franchise or films in general, and it works because that's the actor's job to make you believe it works.

OK I misread that part of your post, but all I meant is that it helps to make the relationships more believable when they have a similar relationship off screen. I never said they had to, or that actors couldn't have create good relationships on screen without doing it, just that it tends to add a little more to it when they do.

Yeah, because being a racist--which Whedon was accused of being--is just being a "jerk" (among his many failings). Preventing a young girl (Trachtenberg) from ever being in a room alone with him for an all too obvious implication (based on Whedon's known behavior) is just the result of Whedon...being a "jerk." Very, very interesting take, JD.

OK, I'm sorry I didn't use a strong enough word for all, but no matter what word you want to use for it, he's not a good guy. But based off the stuff that Miller has done, I'd still say they're a worse person.

 

[crookeddy]

Miller has literally committed illegal violent acts. Just because you want Miller as the Flash doesn't mean you can excuse Miller's behavior with whataboutism.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Miller's never exhibitied his recent behavioral issues before, so it appears as if it were motivated by some undisclosed stresser.

Except for that time when they were choking a woman outside of a bar in Iceland back in 2020.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

No, his are chosen moral failings--which he's embraced and never backed away from for decades, while spewing lies to deny his acts. Miller's never exhibitied his recent behavioral issues before, so it appears as if it were motivated by some undisclosed stresser.

Nope, but you're making a false equivalnency between someone who may have recently exhibited psychological issues and another who chose his lifestlye of numerous abuses. If one chooses to be all of what Whedon is, then it takes no leap to conclude that he is consciously corrupt, not ill. Essential difference--which is ignored by those who are using Miller as their fanboy-fuled cudgel agaisnt a franchise they cannot stand.

Perspective.

Miller's 'recent behavioral issues' go back *2 years* that we know of. And when rumors of Whedon's behavior first started circulating, so many years ago, he *also* did not have a *known* history of such behavior. Because in every case of someone being exposed for bad behavior, there is a point in time when that exposure is fundamentally new regardless of whether the behavior itself is actually new or not.

We have no actual evidence whatsoever that Miller's behavior is new (and at least some evidence that it is not, in fact, new) or that it is not a 'chosen moral failing' as you categorize it.

Yeah, because being a racist--which Whedon was accused of being--is just being a "jerk" (among his many failings). Preventing a young girl (Trachtenberg) from ever being in a room alone with him for an all too obvious implication (based on Whedon's known behavior) is just the result of Whedon...being a "jerk." Very, very interesting take, JD.

Racism is one of the scummiest ideologies a person can have. But assaulting innocent people is still worse than being a terrible person with terrible beliefs who refuses to treat people equally.

And if there was actually evidence of Whedon genuinely attempting to assault Trachtenberg, then that would be one thing, but what there is is a lot of vague implications which are compatible with everything from simple bullying to sexual harassment to assault or even sexual assault (though it's somewhat difficult to believe Trachtenberg's family would have allowed her to stay in the show while he still worked there if it was the last option). The actual main body of evidence we've seen points more toward bullying and power tripping than anything else, but there is enough smoke in the area of sexual harassment/favoritism to keep all the options open until someone who was actually there gives us actual details (not Whedon himself, obviously).

However, even if Whedon did assault Trachtenberg, the fact that he is also a violent criminal and that he additionally has extra disgusting qualities like sexual harasser and racist, does not in any way make what Ezra Miller has done ok.

Assaulting people is bad and should be condemned. Period.

Yes, *even if Miller has some sort of mental or physical issue causing the problem*, assault is *still* a terrible thing and Miller should *still* be called out for it and people should be insisting that they get some kind of treatment for whatever the underlying issue is, not trying to defend them by claiming 'they just can't help it'.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

We have no actual evidence whatsoever that Miller's behavior is new (and at least some evidence that it is not, in fact, new) or that it is not a 'chosen moral failing' as you categorize it.

You're screwing around. There is no evidence Miller's behavior was or is a chosen moral failing, but Whedon has a long, detailed history of behavior which was/is not an accident. Its his life, lifestyle and ideology. There's no way to spin decades of behavior into what some are desperately doing here.

Racism is one of the scummiest ideologies a person can have. But assaulting innocent people is still worse than being a terrible person with terrible beliefs who refuses to treat people equally.

Where racism is concerned, I personally know its dangers when in proximity to someone who is bonded to that belief. It is not simply someone thinking something, but it usually leads to an act of some kind, which is the relevant point in the Fisher case, and far worse examples for other black people who have had to suffer around racists--including the member you're responding to.

And if there was actually evidence of Whedon genuinely attempting to assault Trachtenberg, then that would be one thing, but what there is is a lot of vague implications which are compatible with everything from simple bullying to sexual harassment to assault or even sexual assault (though it's somewhat difficult to believe Trachtenberg's family would have allowed her to stay in the show while he still worked there if it was the last option).[/quote]

Ahhh, so we do not believe or question Trachtenberg, or cast doubt on her experiences? Alrighty.

Yes, *even if Miller has some sort of mental or physical issue causing the problem*, assault is *still* a terrible thing and Miller should *still* be called out for it and people should be insisting that they get some kind of treatment for whatever the underlying issue is, not trying to defend them by claiming 'they just can't help it'.

No one said Miller should not be called out--JD believed he might be "mentally unstable" so his behavior is being discussed. But some have some motives which are all quite obvious with the level of mental gymnastics being perfomed to find a way to reduce the sheer weight of Whedon's history / acts, which is not simply being a "jerk" as JD believes.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

OK I misread that part of your post, but all I meant is that it helps to make the relationships more believable when they have a similar relationship off screen. I never said they had to, or that actors couldn't have create good relationships on screen without doing it, just that it tends to add a little more to it when they do.

The fact so many other examples in film history did not need actors to be pals off-screen, yet deliver great performances / believable on-screen relationships means it was not necessary. You may like the idea of some of the MCU actors having some sort of friendship off-set, but that has no bearing on whether or not their performances worked. They were actors long before the MCU, and if any were known to deliver the believability goods in earlier perfomances, you can bet it was not dependent on their off-screen relationships to other performers.

OK, I'm sorry I didn't use a strong enough word for all, but no matter what word you want to use for it, he's not a good guy. But based off the stuff that Miller has done, I'd still say they're a worse person.

Not selling, guy, nor will it ever sell. That was not an accident or slip of the finger committed before you hit "Post Reply"; you believe Whedon's behavior/history is the man being a "jerk". There's no instinct, perception or experience which would allow any rational person to so aggressively water down racism and implied pedophila as just being a "jerk".

 

[Jinn]

Reminder that Miller uses they/them pronouns, not he/him pronouns.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

You're screwing around. There is no evidence Miller's behavior was or is a chosen moral failing, but Whedon has a long, detailed history of behavior which was/is not an accident. Its his life, lifestyle and ideology. There's no way to spin decades of behavior into what some are desperately doing here.

I'm not screwing around. No one here has claimed Whedon doesn't have a long detailed history of non-accidental behavior. I have not claimed Miller's behavior certainly is a chosen moral failing. You're the one who inserted these claims about 'chosen moral failings' into this conversation to begin with and you're the one making the completely unsupported assumptions that you know exactly what end of 'moral failings' Miller's actions do or don't fall into. There is no evidence either way whether this is a choice or a sickness/condition of some kind.

Where racism is concerned, I personally know its dangers when in proximity to someone who is bonded to that belief. It is not simply someone thinking something, but it usually leads to an act of some kind, which is the relevant point in the Fisher case, and far worse examples for other black people who have had to suffer around racists--including the member you're responding to.

I wouldn't expect otherwise, and I'm sorry you've (or indeed anyone) had to deal with such people, including Whedon.

I still believe there is a very important dividing line between thinking and even doing bad things versus physically assaulting people. It won't hold up perfectly to every possible situation because life is very complicated and there are *so* many different types of situations that can exist, but in general I cannot ignore the underlying principle that violently attacking people is almost always worse than anything else you could do or say to them.

And if there was actually evidence of Whedon genuinely attempting to assault Trachtenberg, then that would be one thing, but what there is is a lot of vague implications which are compatible with everything from simple bullying to sexual harassment to assault or even sexual assault (though it's somewhat difficult to believe Trachtenberg's family would have allowed her to stay in the show while he still worked there if it was the last option).

Ahhh, so we do not believe or question Trachtenberg, or cast doubt on her experiences? Alrighty.

I believe everything Michelle Trachtenberg has said. She has chosen not to give any details at all about the incident beyond the fact that it was bad enough that he was never allowed to be in the same room alone with her again. That does not in any way tell us what specific bad thing he did, only that he was a terrible person in some way or other to a young girl he'd been trusted to have authority over.

No one said Miller should not be called out--JD believed he might be "mentally unstable" so his behavior is being discussed. But some have some motives which are all quite obvious with the level of mental gymnastics being perfomed to find a way to reduce the sheer weight of Whedon's history / acts, which is not simply being a "jerk" as JD believes.

I don't know what JD's motivations or inner beliefs are, anymore than I know yours. From the outside looking in your posts come across as much or more actively trying to handwave away Miller's actions than his do in regards to Whedon's.

But if you're in agreement that Miller's actions are simply unacceptable and they need to do whatever is necessary to stop them from happening again (understanding that if they just keep doing the same thing over and over again without ever taking responsibility in any way, that is ultimately on them, regardless of whatever substance issues, etc, they may have), then it seems we agree on the actual issue. And if that's the case, then I don't see any reason to argue about the exact degree of terrible person that applies to the general shitstain of a man that is Joss Whedon. I don't currently know of any direct evidence or direct testimony of him actually assaulting people, but I would hardly be shocked to hear of it anyway. And I don't need to hear of any to see that his behavior is so far over the line and consistently unrepentant that he should never be allowed to maintain a position of authority of any sort again. The only thing hearing it would actually change for me would be the hope that such a charge would actually lead to him facing serious legal consequences rather than simple career consequences.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I have not claimed Miller's behavior certainly is a chosen moral failing.

Then there was no reason to play this...

We have no actual evidence whatsoever that Miller's behavior is new (and at least some evidence that it is not, in fact, new) or that it is not a 'chosen moral failing' as you categorize it.

You're suggesting that there's some cause to entertain the idea that Miller's behavior might be a chosen moral failing, all in response to the justified judgement of Whedon.

You're the one who inserted these claims about 'chosen moral failings' into this conversation to begin with

Which are entirely applicable to Whedon. No one engages in the volume/categories of that kind of behavior for decades as the result of circumstance, accident or anything out of their control.

I wouldn't expect otherwise, and I'm sorry you've (or indeed anyone) had to deal with such people, including Whedon.

I still believe there is a very important dividing line between thinking and even doing bad things versus physically assaulting people. It won't hold up perfectly to every possible situation because life is very complicated and there are *so* many different types of situations that can exist, but in general I cannot ignore the underlying principle that violently attacking people is almost always worse than anything else you could do or say to them.

You say that, but words have buried people under the weight of inescapable depression. Words have moved people to kill. Words have moved people to commit suicide, so they have always had an impact beyond that ever-nebulous notion (usually employed by the Right Wing end of "free speech" advocates--not meaning you) that words are not threats, or a progressive move toward action of some kind.

I believe everything Michelle Trachtenberg has said. She has chosen not to give any details at all about the incident beyond the fact that it was bad enough that he was never allowed to be in the same room alone with her again. That does not in any way tell us what specific bad thing he did, only that he was a terrible person in some way or other to a young girl he'd been trusted to have authority over.

Its important to remember that Trachtenberg's account was tied to Whedon's other, endless sexual matters, so one can justifiably conclude that she was prevented from being alone with Whedon due to the belief he was capable of, or would commit sexual assault against her. No one said or implied any other type of behavior or act on his part.

I don't know what JD's motivations or inner beliefs are, anymore than I know yours. From the outside looking in your posts come across as much or more actively trying to handwave away Miller's actions than his do in regards to Whedon's.

Nope. I have and will maintain that others are performing mental gymnastics and worst of all, making false equivalencies between Miller and a man with decades of chosen, embraced behavior. One must wonder why...

Miller--thanks to JD's suggestion Miller might suffer from psychological issues--has to be considered (before the point details are released--if ever) but they are not. What I see are certain people being quick to jump to the "Miller's a criminal" accusation sans knowing the full story / investigation into behavior, yet have never even hinted that they believe a decades-long abuser like Whedon has no place in the entertainment industry, and given his history/choices, should never be around women or black people in the workplace. Not a word. Again, there's that why.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

What I see are certain people being quick to jump to the "Miller's a criminal" accusation sans knowing the full story / investigation into behavior, yet have never even hinted that they believe a decades-long abuser like Whedon has no place in the entertainment industry, and given his history/choices, should never be around women or black people in the workplace. Not a word. Again, there's that why.

Go back and read everybody's responses. Everyone seems to be in agreement that Whedon is an awful person and deserves more against him that he's gotten already. You seem to be the only person thinking others have an either/or situation going on.

Even though they're really not comparable in the first place, they're both awful people doing awful things. We all agree with that, except you who seems to want to defend Miller's actions. You're literally the only person in this thread giving a defence to someone doing awful things. Nobody else has. Nobody is defending Whedon. Nobody except you is defending Miller. Again, there's that why.

 

[crookeddy]

Go back and read everybody's responses. Everyone seems to be in agreement that Whedon is an awful person and deserves more against him that he's gotten already. You seem to be the only person thinking others have an either/or situation going on.

Even though they're really not comparable in the first place, they're both awful people doing awful things. We all agree with that, except you who seems to want to defend Miller's actions. You're literally the only person in this thread giving a defence to someone doing awful things. Nobody else has. Nobody is defending Whedon. Nobody except you is defending Miller. Again, there's that why.

The answer is, because he is willing to die on any hill to defend the DCEU especially the Snyderverse. He won't even admit that those movies are among the most hated movies of all time (that also have a sizeable, very noisy fanbase).

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Go back and read everybody's responses. Everyone seems to be in agreement that Whedon is an awful person and deserves more against him that he's gotten already. You seem to be the only person thinking others have an either/or situation going on.

Even though they're really not comparable in the first place, they're both awful people doing awful things. We all agree with that, except you who seems to want to defend Miller's actions. You're literally the only person in this thread giving a defence to someone doing awful things. Nobody else has. Nobody is defending Whedon. Nobody except you is defending Miller. Again, there's that why.

^All BS, since one--I was not the one who brought Whedon into this conversattion, so whoops, and two, any discussion / theories about the causes of Miller's behavior is not support or defense of it, and I challenge you to find a defense of his acts. You will not. .

As I noted earlier:

What I see are certain people being quick to jump to the "Miller's a criminal" accusation sans knowing the full story / investigation into behavior, yet have never even hinted that they believe a decades-long abuser like Whedon has no place in the entertainment industry, and given his history/choices, should never be around women or black people in the workplace. Not a word. Again, there's that why.

The why: one reason Whedon's mountain of abuses/immorality is handled with kid gloves around here. It is quite obvious, just as it was when the Fisher/Gadot stories broke, along with the accounts of Carpenter, Trachtenberg, et al, and it has absoliutely nothing to do with justice, benefit of the doubt or any other motive. JD is one of your best representatives of the handling / perception when he claimed a man with Whedon's horrifying history is just being a "jerk".

A jerk. The racist and strongly suggested pedophile. Oh, that's just being a jerk.

Strong rebuke, there....not.

I will call out that particular level of dressing shit up as something more palatable (just as I have when one of your supporters spent endless pages in a number of threads making insulting, homophobic rants about Heath Ledger / Academy Awards all for one motive) whenever necessary, so deny whatever you like. It will not change or erase the truth.

 

[JD]

I think I see where you see me calling him jerk as somehow downplaying the bad things he has done, and that was not my intention at all. I just kind of use the work jerk as a universal term for anybody who does anything bad, and I did not realize that it was not the appropriate term for someone who has behaved the way he has.
I just kind of use it as a blanket term for anybody who has done anything bad not matter how bad it was, and did not realize this would lead to this kind of misunderstanding. I'm sorry for not being clear enough in the way I was talking about Whedon.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

The Flash's Michael Keaton Was Digitally De-Aged for His Batman Return (cbr.com)

I haven't seen any other news sites reporting this, so I can't claim if it is reliable. I don't know what to think of this. I was looking forward to an older, more experienced Batman, with a touch of "Dark Knight". Maybe The Flash will encounter Batman at an early part of his career, circa "Batman"/"Batman Returns", hence the de-aging, then travel forward in time to a more age-appropriate Brace Wayne.

 

[JD]

Yeah, I hope it's something like that.
And to go back to my last post, I really do feel bad that my other posts were that upsetting, I really honestly didn't mean to defend or downplay how bad Whedon is, I'm just not always good at knowing exactly which words are or aren't the right ones to use in some of these kinds of situations.

 

[crookeddy]

Yeah, I hope it's something like that.
And to go back to my last post, I really do feel bad that my other posts were that upsetting, I really honestly didn't mean to defend or downplay how bad Whedon is, I'm just not always good at knowing exactly which words are or aren't the right ones to use in some of these kinds of situations.

You didn't do anything wrong.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The Flash's Michael Keaton Was Digitally De-Aged for His Batman Return (cbr.com)

I haven't seen any other news sites reporting this, so I can't claim if it is reliable. I don't know what to think of this. I was looking forward to an older, more experienced Batman, with a touch of "Dark Knight". Maybe The Flash will encounter Batman at an early part of his career, circa "Batman"/"Batman Returns", hence the de-aging, then travel forward in time to a more age-appropriate Brace Wayne.

Only thing I know for certain is there are photos of Michael Keaton shooting on location as Bruce Wayne with completely white hair. It was definitely for the movie. It popped up online almost immediately as filming was happening and he was wearing a toupee/wig. In real real life he is almost completely bald on top.

It’s been 30 years since he last played Batman. That is a very long time. It’s possible we just see a flashback as to why his Batman retired. With no need for the Flash or time travel. To give context as to why a modern day Flash needs to convince him to return.