DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[TREK_GOD_1]

During the recent screenings of MOS/BVS/ZSJL, Q&A sessions with Snyder revealed earlier BvS ideas:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

...and more, with guests, including Affleck, Ray Fisher and Chris Terrio:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

...and of course, fan speculation:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[JD]

Who a person is and what they do are two different things. I can't know if the people who bag my groceries or who built my car ever did anything vile or criminal, and it would make no difference to my life anyway, because the jobs they perform are not about who they are in their personal lives. Acting creates the illusion of a more direct, intimate connection to a person, but it's still just an illusion. It's still just a job they do, nothing more.

And the same person can do both good things and bad things. It makes no sense to try to reduce an entire complicated human being to a single variable. I don't see how appreciating the good things someone did equates to excusing or endorsing the bad things, and I don't see how rejecting the good things helps with the bad things.

If I boycotted anything created by a person who'd done bad things, I'd have to throw out Star Trek because of Gene Roddenberry's sexual predations and generally jerky behavior to his collaborators. I'd have to throw out most of DC Comics because Julius Schwartz was a horrible sexual predator and misogynist. I'd have to throw out Isaac Asimov's canon for his decades of sexual harassment. I'd have to throw out the Hitchcock canon because of his atrocious behavior toward his actresses. I'd have to throw out the first Doctor Who because William Hartnell was a racist. Most of the stuff I love was created by problematical people. But I don't see how it would make things any better if I rejected the good things they'd done.

We don't blame children for the sins of their parents. So should we blame people's brainchildren, the books they write, the shows and films they make, and the roles they perform onstage, for the sins of their creators? Once a work is out there, it has its own life independent of its creators, because its meaning becomes a function of what its audience chooses to see in it.

For me, by paying to the read/watch/whatever the things person made, I'm supporting them and allowing them to continue to do horrible things, and since the only real way I can show I'm not OK with it is by making the choice to not give them my money, that is exactly what I'm going to do.
I'm not as bothered once the person is dead, since they won't be benefiting from my money anymore.
It's the same reason I went vegan, as much as I might have enjoyed a lot of animal products, I'm not going to support industries based off of cruelty, abuse, and murder. Why even though I love horses, I refuse to support horse racing, because I'm not going to support a sport filled with abuse and death.

 

[Mage]

After seeing the latest trailer for The Flash again, I realised something...

We have two Barry's. One who is very impressed with the powers of the other. Logically, this new Barry never became The Flash. We also see a scene of Barry strapped in some chair-device and white lightning all around him. Also.... WHen we finally see the two Flashes, the new one's suit looks dark and much more bulky.

I suspect not only do they give him powers as well, they'll use one of Batman's suits to create a suit for this new Flash.

 

[theenglish]

I think that sounds reasonable, and a clever way to re-imagine the classic scene from Flashpoint.

 

[thribs]

I heard a rumor that there is no Eobard in this and that a evil version of Barry kills his mum. That’s just wrong. If I don’t hear evil helicopter noises I’ll be very disappointed.

 

[Christopher]

For me, by paying to the read/watch/whatever the things person made, I'm supporting them and allowing them to continue to do horrible things, and since the only real way I can show I'm not OK with it is by making the choice to not give them my money, that is exactly what I'm going to do.

As I'm sure has already been mentioned, that might make sense for a solo creation like J.K. Rowling's novels, but it makes no sense to apply it to a movie. Ezra Miller did not "make" The Flash. Andy Muschietti and DC Studios made The Flash, with Miller being one of hundreds of employees involved in the process. Is it fair to those hundreds of other people to deprive them of revenue because of one person's involvement?

I mean, what if the person accused of crimes were the costume designer or the VFX coordinator or the construction foreman? Would you boycott the movie then? Just because we see someone's face onscreen does not make them more important than the people we don't see.

It's the same reason I went vegan, as much as I might have enjoyed a lot of animal products, I'm not going to support industries based off of cruelty, abuse, and murder. Why even though I love horses, I refuse to support horse racing, because I'm not going to support a sport filled with abuse and death.

I understand the principle, but in practice, it's impossible not to support bad people. Our tax dollars pay for the roads criminals drive on, the electricity and water they use, the communication systems they use, etc. Not to mention that practically every business in the country is now owned by a handful of toxic billionaires who don't care how many lives and institutions they destroy in the name of profit, and most of our money ends up in their pockets anyway. I still use Twitter and Amazon because I don't have much alternative. The economy is just too interconnected for any "I won't support bad people" principle to be viable except in the most piecemeal way. (I considered cancelling Netflix in solidarity for the writers' strike, but I read that the WGA discourages that, because Netflix could use the losses as an excuse to say they can't afford to meet the writers' terms. Boycotts rarely do much good.)

Also, is Miller really a "bad person," or a mentally troubled person who needs help? It's wrong to pre-emptively write off someone's entire future when they do wrong, instead of giving them the chance to rehabilitate themselves and make amends. It seems to me that ruining someone's career might hurt their chances of rehabilitation, because they might feel they have nothing worthwhile to strive for. But if they have the opportunity to recover their careers in the future, it can give them something to strive for, a reason to clean themselves up and do better in the future. Heck, if Robert Downey Jr. could come back from his troubles and become one of the most popular actors in the world, who knows? We should at least give someone the chance to make amends before deciding they're unforgivable.

I think the best we can do is to support good ideas, stories that promote positive values. Taking positive, constructive steps is always better in the long run than taking negative, subtractive steps. If you want to change the system, you have to start by inspiring people to want something better. Stories can transcend their creators, and often they work as effective counterarguments to their creators' values. Ender's Game is a powerful story about empathy that repudiates everything Orson Scott Card came to advocate later in life. Harry Potter can be read as a trans allegory -- a child told all their life they were one thing, discovering they've actually been something else all along and being liberated by embracing it -- despite its creator's toxic beliefs. Gene Roddenberry was a sexist pig in a lot of ways, but Star Trek's portrayal of women, while regressive today, was forward-looking enough for its time that it inspired many women to strive harder for inclusion and equality.

So who knows? If The Flash is as good as preliminary reviews are saying, it could be meaningful to people and inspire them to positive deeds in the future. What a creation can do for its audience is more important than where it originally came from. (Assuming that it actually is a good movie and not just a case of people mistaking nostalgia and continuity porn for quality, as seems to be common these days.)

I suspect not only do they give him powers as well, they'll use one of Batman's suits to create a suit for this new Flash.

Yes, we've seen photos of the suit online, and it's clearly a repainted Keaton-Batman suit with the ears cut off. It's very weird-looking.

 

[Mage]

Yes, we've seen photos of the suit online, and it's clearly a repainted Keaton-Batman suit with the ears cut off. It's very weird-looking.

Have 'we'? I wasn't aware 'we' did.....
Oh you mean 'you' and 'others' did and by definition the world has? Perhaps my post should have informed you that 'I' never did.

 

[Mage]

I will never understand people who see an offer of knowledge as an attack on their pride rather than an attempt to be helpful.

Way to misread there, Chris. If you want to offer knowledge, don't use the word 'we' as if it's a given that everyone should know what you know, and we should be grateful to you for dispensing said knowledge when we are not privy to the knowledge you have.

You are not aware, I know. But there are more people on this forum that have often mentioned that you have a tendency to talk down on people. A better response would have been 'Oh, that was actually something that has been discussed on this forum already. Perhaps you weren't aware, but if you've missed it, here's a link to where we talked about it' or something along those lines. It's called not being condescending.

No. There is no pride here that was hurt. And the simple fact that YOU assumed there was, says more about how you see fellow human beings than it says anything about me really. What a shame. There is nothing helpful about your statements. They are, as mentioned earlier, condescending. Meaning you see yourself as elevated above others.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

For me, by paying to the read/watch/whatever the things person made, I'm supporting them and allowing them to continue to do horrible things, and since the only real way I can show I'm not OK with it is by making the choice to not give them my money, that is exactly what I'm going to do.

Curious, JD. So, I take it you will not buy or watch any of the X-Men films or Superman Returns, because Bryan Singer was behind the aforementioned movies? Speaking of Superman Returns, what about one of its stars--Kevin Spacey--do you watch anything else he's participated in, or intend to support it with your dollars in the future? How about Whedon?

 

[wayoung]

There is no ethical consumption. Everything you spend money on has at least one (and probably a great many) assholes somewhere in the supply chain that you would in no way support financially if you had the option not too.

It's each individuals own ability to seperate what they are buying vs. their knowledge of what went into the product that determines whether or not they should support something.

If JD can't stomach supporting The Flash because of Ezra, that's his own personal call. If someone else can't support Harry Potter because of Rowling, that's their call. If another won't watch Weinstein productions etc. etc.

I don't think anyone should be judged on their own choices what to support or not. There are thousands of people who work on entertainment properties. Seperation of art vs artists, we all have our own line, and none of us have it hard and fast, and we're all hypocritical about it when you break it down logically because, as stated above, there is no ethical consumption. "Gotcha" questions or trying to convince people otherwise doesn't work, and shouldn't, as these decisions are all made on personal emotional basis'.

Just like I don't agree with the people who say that playing Harry Potter Legacy makes you a transphobe, I don't agree that watching The Flash means you are supporting child grooming due to the thousands of people other than Ezra and Rowling involved in both projects. But I fully respect others choice that they personally can't stomach it because that's all they think of when they watch/play/whatever them.

 

[Christopher]

There is no ethical consumption. Everything you spend money on has at least one (and probably a great many) assholes somewhere in the supply chain that you would in no way support financially if you had the option not too.

Yup. We probably have water and air molecules in our bodies that were once inside Hitler or Jack the Ripper. We all share the same world and the same ecosystem, physically and financially. (There's that old bromide that every $20 bill on Earth has traces of cocaine on it. Although I don't know why it specifies twenties.)

If JD can't stomach supporting The Flash because of Ezra, that's his own personal call. If someone else can't support Harry Potter because of Rowling, that's their call. If another won't watch Weinstein productions etc. etc.

Yes, but decisions should be based on the best information possible, and that requires listening to other points of view. The internet seems to have forgotten that the point of debate is not to attack or impose on others, but to help each other broaden our perspective so that we can make better, more informed decisions.

Indeed, what I'm saying here is a debate I've had with myself, in response to my first impulse to shy away from creators or performers who've done bad things. I realized there were more factors to consider, and when I considered them, I changed my mind. I figure if I can let myself enjoy DC characters created by a horrible, misogynistic creep like Julius Schwartz, then I don't see how Miller's involvement in a DC production is any different. I mean, Schwartz was far more responsible for the creation and decision-making behind those characters, while Miller is mostly just carrying out decisions made by the director, writers, producers, etc. So I don't see how Miller's involvement in the Flash movie taints it any more than Schwartz's far more central involvement in the creation of Barry Allen or the rest of Silver/Bronze Age DC. And I don't feel Miller's involvement should be held against the hard work of the rest of the cast, the director, the writers, and the other filmmakers.

 

[Set Harth]

despite its creator's toxic beliefs.

Her haters are the toxic ones. Her beliefs aren't toxic.

 

[Morpheus 02]

Way to misread there, Chris. If you want to offer knowledge, don't use the word 'we' as if it's a given that everyone should know what you know, and we should be grateful to you for dispensing said knowledge when we are not privy to the knowledge you have.

You are not aware, I know. But there are more people on this forum that have often mentioned that you have a tendency to talk down on people. A better response would have been 'Oh, that was actually something that has been discussed on this forum already. Perhaps you weren't aware, but if you've missed it, here's a link to where we talked about it' or something along those lines. It's called not being condescending.

No. There is no pride here that was hurt. And the simple fact that YOU assumed there was, says more about how you see fellow human beings than it says anything about me really. What a shame. There is nothing helpful about your statements. They are, as mentioned earlier, condescending. Meaning you see yourself as elevated above others.

I fully support these comments. ANd other recent examples include his outrage that someone would dare call Starfire's skin "orange" even though a reasonable person might say that about the comics or cartoons, and every Starfire cosplay i have seen has clearly orange make up and not gold. (Or also his unawareness that the majority of the population looks at Superman and sees red underwear even thought they are "supposed" to say trunks)

 

[JD]

As I'm sure has already been mentioned, that might make sense for a solo creation like J.K. Rowling's novels, but it makes no sense to apply it to a movie. Ezra Miller did not "make" The Flash. Andy Muschietti and DC Studios made The Flash, with Miller being one of hundreds of employees involved in the process. Is it fair to those hundreds of other people to deprive them of revenue because of one person's involvement?

I mean, what if the person accused of crimes were the costume designer or the VFX coordinator or the construction foreman? Would you boycott the movie then? Just because we see someone's face onscreen does not make them more important than the people we don't see

.

Curious, JD. So, I take it you will not buy or watch any of the X-Men films or Superman Returns, because Bryan Singer was behind the aforementioned movies? Speaking of Superman Returns, what about one of its stars--Kevin Spacey--do you watch anything else he's participated in, or intend to support it with your dollars in the future? How about Whedon?

Sorry, I thought I addressed this point in my post, but I must have forgotten, I am still happy to support products with multiple people involved. I can feel OK supporting things like The Flash, since Miller isn't the only person benefitting from that support. That all pretty much just applies to single creator products like novels, I haven't bought any of Orson Scott Card's books since I found out what he's like, same goes for JK Rowling.

I understand the principle, but in practice, it's impossible not to support bad people. Our tax dollars pay for the roads criminals drive on, the electricity and water they use, the communication systems they use, etc. Not to mention that practically every business in the country is now owned by a handful of toxic billionaires who don't care how many lives and institutions they destroy in the name of profit, and most of our money ends up in their pockets anyway. I still use Twitter and Amazon because I don't have much alternative. The economy is just too interconnected for any "I won't support bad people" principle to be viable except in the most piecemeal way. (I considered cancelling Netflix in solidarity for the writers' strike, but I read that the WGA discourages that, because Netflix could use the losses as an excuse to say they can't afford to meet the writers' terms. Boycotts rarely do much good.)

My choices to go vegan and not to support horse racing aren't about "bad people" being involved in those industries, but about the fact that they're entirely based around the torture and murder of innocent beings, and as some who truly does care about animals, I could not support them any longer. I've seen to much footage of both the happy animals living at the sanctuaries I support, and what really goes on at dairy farms, slaughter houses and race tracks to be able to support the later.
And yes, I am aware that there are bad people everywhere and it's impossible to stop supporting all people who have done things I don't agree with, but every time I have the option to choose an alternative that doesn't support those people, I will go with that one.

Also, is Miller really a "bad person," or a mentally troubled person who needs help? It's wrong to pre-emptively write off someone's entire future when they do wrong, instead of giving them the chance to rehabilitate themselves and make amends. It seems to me that ruining someone's career might hurt their chances of rehabilitation, because they might feel they have nothing worthwhile to strive for. But if they have the opportunity to recover their careers in the future, it can give them something to strive for, a reason to clean themselves up and do better in the future. Heck, if Robert Downey Jr. could come back from his troubles and become one of the most popular actors in the world, who knows? We should at least give someone the chance to make amends before deciding they're unforgivable.

I think the best we can do is to support good ideas, stories that promote positive values. Taking positive, constructive steps is always better in the long run than taking negative, subtractive steps. If you want to change the system, you have to start by inspiring people to want something better.

Yes, and that is exactly why I chose to go vegan, because a positive, compassionate life style, that shows that it is possible for us to live our lives without animals having to be hurt or killed for our enjoyment.

Stories can transcend their creators, and often they work as effective counterarguments to their creators' values. Ender's Game is a powerful story about empathy that repudiates everything Orson Scott Card came to advocate later in life. Harry Potter can be read as a trans allegory -- a child told all their life they were one thing, discovering they've actually been something else all along and being liberated by embracing it -- despite its creator's toxic beliefs. Gene Roddenberry was a sexist pig in a lot of ways, but Star Trek's portrayal of women, while regressive today, was forward-looking enough for its time that it inspired many women to strive harder for inclusion and equality. So who knows? If The Flash is as good as preliminary reviews are saying, it could be meaningful to people and inspire them to positive deeds in the future. What a creation can do for its audience is more important than where it originally came from. (Assuming that it actually is a good movie and not just a case of people mistaking nostalgia and continuity porn for quality, as seems to be common these days.)

That may be true, but as long as it is a product where all or the majority of the money from it goes to a person who has done things I disagree with, I will choose not to support that person, no matter how great the story is.
And this is the point where I confess that yes, I am a hypocrite and do make a very sfew exceptions, like if it's a part of an ongoing series and I will lose out on important story points by not seeing/reading it. And on the vegan front, while most vegans are against horseback riding, I'm not, as long as it's done in a compassionate way. And if I get a chance to do it, I'll probably have to use a leather saddle, since as far as I know that's all they make.

 

[Christopher]

That may be true, but as long as it is a product where all or the majority of the money from it goes to a person who has done things I disagree with, I will choose not to support that person, no matter how great the story is.

Yeah, I doubt I'll ever go ahead with my longtime wish to replace my localized American Harry Potter editions with editions containing the original British text, not unless I could get them used or something. At least Miller is reportedly getting rehab and should be allowed the chance to earn redemption, but Rowling has rejected every opportunity for redemption and has only grown more entrenched in her bigoted views.

And on the vegan front, while most vegans are against horseback riding, I'm not, as long as it's done in a compassionate way. And if I get a chance to do it, I'll probably have to use a leather saddle, since as far as I know that's all they make.

I've often thought that I'd be uneasy with the idea of using another living being as a vehicle unless I could have their explicit permission. But I've gathered recently that the relationship between horse and rider, at best, is more equal than that, that there is a real bond and communication there. Though I definitely feel more comfortable about the "horse whispering" approach, earning the horse's trust and respect, rather than the "breaking" method.

(If you only eat Kaferian apples, does that make you a Delta Vegan?)

 

[JD]

Yeah, I doubt I'll ever go ahead with my longtime wish to replace my localized American Harry Potter editions with editions containing the original British text, not unless I could get them used or something. At least Miller is reportedly getting rehab and should be allowed the chance to earn redemption, but Rowling has rejected every opportunity for redemption and has only grown more entrenched in her bigoted views.

Yeah, Miller really was having mental health issue and is getting help, then I have no problem watching Flash and any other movies they're in. If anything that would make me want to support them more, since they realized they needed help and actually got it, and that's something I fully support people doing.
JK Rowling on the other hand, can just fuck off, every time she had the opportunity to appologize or admit her mistakes, she just doubled down on the horrible shit.

I've often thought that I'd be uneasy with the idea of using another living being as a vehicle unless I could have their explicit permission. But I've gathered recently that the relationship between horse and rider, at best, is more equal than that, that there is a real bond and communication there. Though I definitely feel more comfortable about the "horse whispering" approach, earning the horse's trust and respect, rather than the "breaking" method.

(If you only eat Kaferian apples, does that make you a Delta Vegan?)

I follow some horse people on IG, and there really is a lot of love and a strong bond there with horses and their owners who treat them the right way.

 

[YLu]

And yes, I am aware that there are bad people everywhere and it's impossible to stop supporting all people who have done things I don't agree with, but every time I have the option to choose an alternative that doesn't support those people, I will go with that one.

I agree with this. Too often, people use "there is no ethical consumption" as an excuse to not do anything. Which is like saying there's no chance of getting a perfect score on a test so why even try to do well? Hell, if anything, that unethical consumption so suffuses are lives is all the more reason we should push back in the places where it *is* possible to.

I also don't think thinking about this stuff in terms of whether you personally are still able to find enjoyment in the work is the right attitude. It's not about you. Like, I honestly have no doubt that I'd be able to enjoy a Chick-Fil-A sandwich. My choice not to be a customer isn't about me not being able to enjoy their food. It's about not wanting to give money to a company that actively funds bigotry, and not selfishly putting me being able to enjoy a goddamn grilled chicken club ahead of that.

(Obviously, it's a different situation when the terrible person is dead and no longer profiting even indirectly from my purchase.)

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I have to fundamentally disagree about Miller's 'rehabilitation'. Not only did Miller not 'realize they have a problem and get help', they literally spent weeks (or was it months? it kind of blurred together) running around the country actively taunting law enforcement while they were wanted. By all appearances the only thing that changed that was the genuine possibility that their movie might not get released.

And given that the WB's response to all this insanity has been stonewall after stonewall, I don't have the slightest confidence that Miller is actually doing anything to work on anything at all beyond simply finally having learned to shut the hell up and let WB do the talking.

Even if I'm wrong, I still don't think a hypothetically rehabilitated Miller should ever be allowed to just move forward again. Starting a cult to groom children is a massively disturbing act not just because it happened but because Miller even thought of doing it in the first place, regardless of stress, drugs or mental issues. The fact that their mind went to that place at all means they should never be trusted with any kind of power or authority, period.

Also, just as significant, Miller isn't the only person involved here that absolutely deserves some major repercussions from all of this. WB's own behavior has been bizarre and their refusal to do literally anything earlier absolutely enabled Miller to keep doing this shit. The fact that they're clearly now pushing a soft pr campaign to spread the idea that Miller's behavior was just 'mistakes' related to 'stress' is outright disgusting as well, especially since their grand production of Ezra 'apologizing' never even admitted to what Miller actually did beyond 'alarming and upsetting people' and endangering the success of a movie.

Bottom line for me, if this movie is a massive hit, WB (and every other studio) comes away with the lesson that it literally doesn't matter what a person has done, if you think you can make money off them all you have to do is to ignore everything as long as humanly possible, toss out a generic excuse about their state of mind, working to be better, etc, and have a bunch of employees do interviews about their 'mistakes' and 'stress'. It would deeply undermine the entire concept of accountability in Hollywood.

 

[wayoung]

I agree with this. Too often, people use "there is no ethical consumption" as an excuse to not do anything. Which is like saying there's no chance of getting a perfect score on a test so why even try to do well? Hell, if anything, that unethical consumption so suffuses are lives is all the more reason we should push back in the places where it *is* possible to.

Well, since you are directly quoting me without quoting me, please point out where I say nobody should ever do anything? Because I'm pretty damn sure what I said was that because there is no ethical consumption it is pointless to do "gotcha" questions (like were being posted above me) or try to change people's minds and not to judge anyone for the choices they make as it's remarkably personal and emotionally based, and that's all right.

 

[YLu]

I wasn't talking about you. "There is no ethical consumption phrase" is such a common statement that I'm only quoting you in the sense that if someone mentioned "Live long and prosper" and I did too later in the same thread, I'm quoting them.