Spoilers The Flash (2023) -Review and Discussion Thread

[the G-man]

Ok, I understand the file was only recently recovered. But then shouldn't he have been released from prison as soon as the video was available? Was it necessary to do a new trial? Do they have to do it every time unequivocal proof of the innocence of someone wrongly convicted turns up?

The laws of each state vary and everything would depend on the specific facts of the case. However, genreally, once a defendant has been convicted, in order to set aside the conviction based on new evidence, the defendant is required to make a motion to set aside the conviction upon the grounds of newly discovered evidence. Assuming the prosecutor doesn't stipulate to the relief requested (and most do not for various reasons, many of which are actually justified), the court thereafter schedules oral argument and (possibly) an evidentiary hearing. That argument and hearing would look at various issues including, but not limited to, authentication of the new evidence and the likelihood of whether the evidence would have resulted in a different verdict if presented at the trial. Assuming the court rules in favor of the defendant, and depending on the nature of the ruling, it may order the conviction set aside with prejudice or it might order a new trial. Of course, all of that would also be subject to appellate review at the request of the losing party.

In other words: Maybe, maybe not

 

[the G-man]

I don’t think the performance of Black Adam was responsible for the box office misfortunes of Shazam 2 or The Flash. There was a brand acceptance problem for the DCEU long before Black Adam debuted. It started with the divisive Man of Steel and then went into this back and forth, as it seemed every step forward the DCEU made with the masses, there was a setback, or several, and now the mass audience doesn’t trust the brand.

I don't disagree that DCEU had a brand problem before BA though I think BA kind of put the final nail in the coffin.

 

[Guy Gardener]

The laws of each state vary and everything would depend on the specific facts of the case. However, genreally, once a defendant has been convicted, in order to set aside the conviction based on new evidence, the defendant is required to make a motion to set aside the conviction upon the grounds of newly discovered evidence. Assuming the prosecutor doesn't stipulate to the relief requested (and most do not for various reasons, many of which are actually justified), the court thereafter schedules oral argument and (possibly) an evidentiary hearing. That argument and hearing would look at various issues including, but not limited to, authentication of the new evidence and the likelihood of whether the evidence would have resulted in a different verdict if presented at the trial. Assuming the court rules in favor of the defendant, and depending on the nature of the ruling, it may order the conviction set aside with prejudice or it might order a new trial. Of course, all of that would also be subject to appellate review at the request of the losing party.

In other words: Maybe, maybe not

Ha! I thought that you were talking about Ezra IRL.

My bad.

 

[Skipper]

Assuming the prosecutor doesn't stipulate to the relief requested (and most do not for various reasons, many of which are actually justified), the court thereafter schedules oral argument and (possibly) an evidentiary hearing.

Uh, now I'm not sure, what we saw in the movie was a hearing or a trial..?

 

[the G-man]

Uh, now I'm not sure, what we saw in the movie was a hearing or a trial..?

Who knows? The only thing in movies less realistic than superpowers is Hollywood's typical portrayal of the judicial process.

 

[Skipper]

Who knows? The only thing in movies less realistic than superpowers is Hollywood's typical portrayal of the judicial process.

You have a point

I don't know if you saw the movie, If you want I can try to recap the scene.

 

[Skywalker]

They established in the beginning that it was a hearing for his father's appeal to have the charges dropped. The Allens' lawyer then presented the new evidence to prove his client's innocence, evidence that didn't exist at the time of the original trial because the video was too garbled to make out anything.

 

[the G-man]

You have a point

I don't know if you saw the movie, If you want I can try to recap the scene.

Thanks, but nah. I spend waaay too much time saying "that isn't how it works" as is.

 

[Skipper]

Thanks, but nah. I spend waaay too much time saying "that isn't how it works" as is.

Thank you, but @Skywalker has already answered that

I suppose that in some cases hearings can be a frenzy media circus, right?

 

[Guy Gardener]

Uh, now I'm not sure, what we saw in the movie was a hearing or a trial..?

Barry got the epic new rendering technology.

Lets say it took weeks or months to render the video.

So Barry of Barry's lawyer starts the appeal process, based on hypothetical new evidence that will be ready in a month, by fibbing and pretending that they already had the re-rendered video.

Barry is a CSI.

Half of his job is to be in court and give evidence.

He has personal relationships and professional relations with most of the court house if he's been presenting thousands of cases at the court house, ever year for the decade that he's been csi-ing.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

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

 

[Photoman15]

The video was garbled before so they couldn’t confirm it was him at the supermarket until Barry was able to fix it.

Yeah but once Barry changed the tomato can position and the video showed his father, the ORIGINAL tape played at the original trial (if it even got to that), cleared him. Barry should have returned to a free dad.

 

[Skipper]

Yeah but once Barry changed the tomato can position and the video showed his father, the ORIGINAL tape played at the original trial (if it even got to that), cleared him. Barry should have returned to a free dad.

I understand that the video was corrupted for some reason and Wayne's supersoftware was only recently able to recover it.

 

[DarKush]

I don't disagree that DCEU had a brand problem before BA though I think BA kind of put the final nail in the coffin.

That's cool, though I don't think Black Adam was the final nail. I'm not sure what the final nail was (maybe it was the corporate shenanigans made public or even James Gunn announcing the new DC slate this year instead of waiting until after Aquaman 2 was out), but if a movie that has Michael Keaton's return as Batman doesn't go over, there is a definite problem. Personally, I think the DCEU was weakened out the gate, with Man of Steel. Consider the reaction of that film to the first Iron Man. The MCU, while having clunkers too, just got people on board right off, and is now, after over a decade, is losing momentum. The DCEU rarely got any momentum going before the very next film that came out undercut whatever momentum (like with the first Wonder Woman and Aquaman) they had just painstakingly earned.

 

[Anwar]

Yeah but once Barry changed the tomato can position and the video showed his father, the ORIGINAL tape played at the original trial (if it even got to that), cleared him. Barry should have returned to a free dad.

The original video was poor quality and not admissible as evidence, not until Batman was able to clean it up and enhance it enough to get an HD Image from it.

Otherwise, Barry would have returned to a timeline where his dad never went to jail in the first place.

 

[Skipper]

I know that it isn't an episode of Law and Order, but I'm surprised that they found him guilty in the original Timeline.

The son could even testify that the father had gone to the supermarket!

 

[the G-man]

if a movie that has Michael Keaton's return as Batman doesn't go over, there is a definite problem

I think WB--and certain amount of fandom--overestimated the Keaton factor. On reflection, given the passage of time since the two Keaton films and the sheer amount of Batman product--and actors--since the 1980s, I think that, for a lot of people in the general public, Keaton isn't "their" or "the" Batman, he's simply one in a parade of talented actors who've put on the cape and cowl over the past four decades.

 

[the G-man]

The MCU, while having clunkers too, just got people on board right off, and is now, after over a decade, is losing momentum. The DCEU rarely got any momentum going before the very next film that came out undercut whatever momentum (like with the first Wonder Woman and Aquaman) they had just painstakingly earned.

The early MCU benefitted from not rushing into things, keeping the interconnected continuity loose (more Easter eggs than direct crossovers), not panicking in a particular film wasn't a blockbuster, letting different directors try different styles/tones, keeping budgets lower in certain cases, etc. DC/WB just went all in with Snyder and a rush to the giant crossover before determining if their plan was what audiences wanted.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

I think WB--and certain amount of fandom--overestimated the Keaton factor. On reflection, given the passage of time since the two Keaton films and the sheer amount of Batman product--and actors--since the 1980s, I think that, for a lot of people in the general public, Keaton isn't "their" or "the" Batman, he's simply one in a parade of talented actors who've put on the cape and cowl over the past four decades.

Which people would still be interested in if the movie and word of mouth surrounding his return were good enough.
It worked for Spider-Man.

But JUST Keaton isn't enough to bring people in. JUST any actor isn't, people don't watch movies for actors anymore. They may be more interested, but if they hear nothing but bad things, it's just not going to happen.

With that said, Keaton is the only reason I want to see the movie. Ezra is the reason I won't pay for that.

 

[DarKush]

I think WB--and certain amount of fandom--overestimated the Keaton factor. On reflection, given the passage of time since the two Keaton films and the sheer amount of Batman product--and actors--since the 1980s, I think that, for a lot of people in the general public, Keaton isn't "their" or "the" Batman, he's simply one in a parade of talented actors who've put on the cape and cowl over the past four decades.

I'm one of those people. I got caught up in the Batmania in 1989 and I became a massive fan of Keaton's Batman. I hadn't really considered, until listening to You Tube, just how old Batman '89 and Batman Returns are, and how there's now like two generations who didn't grow up on that. For them, if they have a Batman, it could be Christian Bale, Ben Affleck, or Robert Pattinson. Kilmer and Clooney might also be "their" Batman for older Millennials. I was listening to Grace Randolph, and I think Sean Chandler also mentioned it, but comparing say The Flash to Spider-Man: No Way Home, that nostalgia bait was only twenty years old and less (also No Way Home used nostalgia much better than The Flash). And I'm not even really thinking of the cartoons and the video games, which also Batmen that audiences like.

Keaton wasn't the only reason I saw The Flash, but he was a major reason, and his performance was the best thing in the movie for me. Keaton would be the only reason I would look at the movie again or buy it on home video. And I didn't find Ezra Miller's performance bad, or the story their character was given either (even though I think it was undercooked a bit).