That’s what I’m going with but I’m wondering if the writers were thinking the same thing.
Spoilers The Flash (2023) -Review and Discussion Thread
- Thread starter thribs
- Start date
During John Byrne's 'Superman' run, he traveled to the alternate timeline/reality where he had been Superboy growing up, which led to the formation of The Legion of Superheroes. When that reality's Superboy was killed by the Time Trapper, Lex Luthor accidently released the three Kryptonian supervillains, who ended up destroying that world, Superman killed them with that reality's version of Kryptonite, which was harmless to him.
I remember that story. Bought the issues when they came out (LSH was my first regularly collected title starting in 1973 and I was curious how the post-Crisis LSH would be explained). It’s what prompted my earlier post. Can hardly believe that was almost 40 years ago.
It seems that the armor was preventing him from flying, and that he wanted to fight Kal-El on equal terms.
But in either case, MoS or The Flash, the Kryptonian metal is from the same reality as the Kryptonians.
Last edited:
Any cut with Cavil would require paying him more, and that's not likely to happen any time soon.
So barring a leak, we'll see that ending around the same time as Batgirl.
Clark seemed visibly hurt when the drone attacked him though.
Did it? How so? It's not like carrying heavy things prevents Superman from flying.
Only when it used some kind of energy weapon on him (A laser whip?) though. It didn't seem to harm him with 'just metal'.
The armour and helmet helped Zod and the others cope with Earth atmosphere. Taking it off was to show he didn't need it. That he'd adjusted. What took Clark a lifetime he mastered in a few hours.
Incidentally, I decided to go ahead and rewatch both Keaton Batman movies today, to remind myself of what The Flash was referencing. One thing that complicates the question of what universe it's in, relative to the Burton movies, is that TF faithfully recreates the version of Wayne Manor and the Batcave from Batman, but Batman Returns completely redesigns both of them. So if it's all the same universe, then maybe Bruce moved to a completely different house and cave, then moved back later??
Also, now I get what the point of that "How much do you weigh?" bit was. It wasn't just random weirdness, it was a callback to the grappling-hook scene with Batman and Vicki Vale.
Anyway, rewatching the movies did not improve my opinions of them. Well, the '89 movie was fairly watchable, but it amazes me that anyone ever thought it was a serious take on Batman. It's a very jokey script, poking a lot of fun at its characters and subject matter, with absurd situations and broad performances. It's basically a dark comedy, just as campy in its own way as the Adam West show, just more gothic and violent. As for Returns, it's a mess. Apparently Burton wasn't too satisfied with the first film, which was probably his most conventional, commercial film, but BR lets him cut loose with the grotesquerie and bizarreness to the detriment of a coherent story, and trying to tell three villain stories at once (counting Shreck) makes it cluttered.
Also, I'm sorry, but I don't get why people like Keaton's Batman. I found him quite mediocre in the role, just delivering all his lines in this distracted monotone throughout and never conveying the emotional burdens the character was supposed to have. I guess he was somewhat better in The Flash, but still building on what came before, which was my least favorite screen interpretation of Batman (except maybe for the '40s serials).
Also, now I get what the point of that "How much do you weigh?" bit was. It wasn't just random weirdness, it was a callback to the grappling-hook scene with Batman and Vicki Vale.
Anyway, rewatching the movies did not improve my opinions of them. Well, the '89 movie was fairly watchable, but it amazes me that anyone ever thought it was a serious take on Batman. It's a very jokey script, poking a lot of fun at its characters and subject matter, with absurd situations and broad performances. It's basically a dark comedy, just as campy in its own way as the Adam West show, just more gothic and violent. As for Returns, it's a mess. Apparently Burton wasn't too satisfied with the first film, which was probably his most conventional, commercial film, but BR lets him cut loose with the grotesquerie and bizarreness to the detriment of a coherent story, and trying to tell three villain stories at once (counting Shreck) makes it cluttered.
Also, I'm sorry, but I don't get why people like Keaton's Batman. I found him quite mediocre in the role, just delivering all his lines in this distracted monotone throughout and never conveying the emotional burdens the character was supposed to have. I guess he was somewhat better in The Flash, but still building on what came before, which was my least favorite screen interpretation of Batman (except maybe for the '40s serials).
I also found this quite similar for some large IP movies.
Batman Forever- It's got Tim Burton producing so Joel Schumacher's style isn't fully on display
Batman and Robin- All Schumacher with the neon full on display and more outlandish than the last movie. The second time around with him directing we understand his third acts MUST include the new toys
Batman Forever- The batwing and boat.
Batman and Robin (All the ice themed vehicles)
Man of Steel- It felt like it was 70% of Zack Synders style
Batman VS Superman- All Snyder with more biblical allusions and how the opening was formatted with the "The Day the Superman appeared" title card.
I would've rather seen The Flash actually develop Bruce's character evolution over time more fully, instead of using him as a vehicle for exposition and catchphrases. It's lazy to get a reaction from an audience just by showing them something familiar. It's a poor substitute for earning a reaction with something new.
In particular, having him quote "You wanna get nuts? Let's get nuts!" made no sense. That wasn't a catchphrase, it was something he said in a specific situation to provoke the Joker.
In particular, having him quote "You wanna get nuts? Let's get nuts!" made no sense. That wasn't a catchphrase, it was something he said in a specific situation to provoke the Joker.
It worked better here than it did when Red Death said it in the final season of The Flash. Now THAT is shoe-horning something completely unrelated into a script.
I don't mind that so much, since in the context of the story, the Red Death wasn't using it as a quote; it was just something she said in the moment that could only be recognized out-of-universe as a reference to something else. So it wasn't implausible within the narrative itself. (And I didn't even recognize the quote at the time, since it had been so long since I'd seen the movie.) In The Flash, by contrast, Bruce was repeating something he himself had said before, and it doesn't work for me to treat it as a recurring catchphrase of his, because in the original film it was specific to that particular context.
I mean, that was a moment when he was confronting a deranged criminal who was attempting to abduct his girlfriend, whom he discovered moments later was the man who'd killed his parents, and who then attempted to murder him. It was not a pleasant moment that he would want to commemorate later in life with a glib catchphrase. If anything, it was in rather poor taste for The Flash to have him use it that way.
Perhaps. But wer're not looking at in-universe. It's all about audience reaction. Have a character say the thing and so on. And in this case, having Keaton say it made more sense as a reference than Red Death.
In 1996's Zero Hour: Crisis in Time, trying to clean up the post Crisis mess, they revealed the Time Trapper had always been a grown up version of Cosmic Boy.
