It isn't on HBO Max yet, so no. I wonder when it'll show up there. I watched the previous movies in the current, loose "Tomorrowverse" continuity recently. Superman: Man of Tomorrow was the best by a wide margin, which is bad considering that it was the first. Justice Society: World War Two wasn't bad. Batman: The Long Halloween was faithful to a story I didn't like in the comics, and I wish they'd done an original take on Batman as interesting as their take on Superman. The Green Lantern movie was okay but flawed, and the nominal lead character John Stewart often felt like a supporting player in his own movie. And it's weird how much these movies jump around the continuity they supposedly share, with only tenuous connections. On the other hand, I also recently did a marathon rewatch (and first watch in a few cases) of the previous DC Animated Movie Universe. While it had a terrible start with Justice League: War, it's otherwise much better and more consistent overall than I remembered, and it was getting even better toward the end, so it's a shame they chose to end it in favor of a new (nominal) continuity which has mostly been inferior.
That is always going to happen with John Stewart. If he isn't as dull as a plank of wood then you are not doing his character properly. The Long Halloween was good. I felt they did that type of story better than the latest live action Batman movie and it was still shorter than that if you add both parts together. The Justice Society WWII was also good and I liked the stuff with Shakespeare in it. I admit I didn't see that coming. The short movie, Kamandi that came with the blu ray also tied in nicely with the movie.
I love the Legion of Super-Heroes but I passed on the movie after seeing a spoiler about how they depict one of my favorite characters.
They are allowing other productions to go ahead, with the Elseworlds label. Prime example being the Matt Reeves Batman films and spin-off TV shows, which Matt Reeves has relatively free reign for. Now, with the DCU, they want the actors to stay consistent across all media. Which, honestly, is a nice goal, but I can't see it being successful 100 percent. Even the MCU has had to replace some actors, and that was only in one medium. The Joker is not a crime boss. At least not in the traditional sense of organized crime. Well, maybe in Batman '89, and he took out the traditional organized crime bosses in TDK, but other than that, he's doing his own thing, which is mostly causing chaos and mayhem, not running illegal clubs and selling drugs. So, Sionis wouldn't have had to take over Gotham's crime scene from the Joker, because the Joker never was in charge of organized crime, not even in the DCEU. Yes, there is that one scene in the club where he is bargaining a criminal business deal, but there's no reason to believe he did that sort of thing all the time (more likely a way to fund his next crazy scheme), and there was certainly nothing saying he was in charge over all of Gotham's organized crime. In most interpretations, he leaves that sort of thing to characters like Penguin and, you know, Black Mask. As to leaving Gotham, he does road trips all the time. He's often been in Metropolis (which is only across the river in the DCEU, which was always dumb). In the classic comic story A Death in the Family, he was in Ethiopia and later as UN Ambassador for Iran in Washington and New York. Hell, in the DCEU, he was in Central City, wasn't he?
The entire concept of the movie was to show Harley fully detached from the Joker. She doesn't care, and as an extensison of that, we shouldn't either and focus on her life in the same way that she does. LIke her, we accept he's no longer part of her life and move on. To put a focus on the Joker, we take away from the fact that this is all about Harley living her own life.
That's exactly right. The same as with Suicide Squad (the first one). The Joker was only there to serve Harley's story.
Fans of the DC Animated Universe would disagree. And the problem with the movie wasn't that John wasn't interesting, it was that the script often didn't seem interested in focusing on him.
I don't agree. Harley spent a good deal of the movie struggling to get over being dumped by the Joker. Why did he dump her in the first place? Why did Black Mask believe that the Joker's disappearance was the right opportunity to become Gotham's top criminal? The Joker's rejection of Harley and his disappearance has served as catalysts for Harley and Ronan's arcs in the movie. But his actions were never explained.
Agreed. The film needs to serve my interests, which has nothing to do with anything others think or post on various platforms. Most of the DCEU more than lived up to my expectations for / interest in superhero movie adaptations unlike any project produced before, with the Nolan Bat-films & the Alyn Superman serials being the only exception (on equal footing).
Again, that's the point of the movie. Harley finding her own life. WHY they broke up doesn't matter. Her journey does. You personally want explanations. That doesn't mean the movie needs them. Those are two separate things.
That's implied in the opening animation. Harley was the brains behind some of his capers, and when she tried to assert herself and get some credit for her efforts, his fragile toxically masculine ego couldn't tolerate it, so he kicked her out. Not unlike the events of the original Batman: The Animated Series Harley's origin-story comic (and later episode) Mad Love.
(I enjoyed the movie): The Hollywood Reporter: Box Office: ‘Shazam! Fury of the Gods’ Heads for Dismal $30M Domestic Opening https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/shazam-fury-gods-box-office-opening-1235355902/
All this nonsense with Gunn probably affected it. People know it doesn’t matter and so they are ignoring it.
I do see that attitude around, unfortunately. Some people just aren't satisfied with a movie being good unto itself. These people remind me of Trek fans who describe an episode as "filler" just because it doesn't contribute to an arc.
Most casual moviegoers probably don't pay attention to studio politics, and they certainly don't assume a standalone movie "doesn't matter." And it's the casual moviegoers who make up the majority of a profitable film's audience -- people who don't care about franchises and series continuity and all that, but just want something to take a date or a family to on their day off, or want to see an actor they like, or whatever. The hardcore fanbase that follows the behind-the-scenes news and worries about "cinematic universes" is not a large enough percentage of the audience to make a critical difference. Also, whether you're a casual filmgoer or a hardcore fan, it is dysfunctional to define the worth of a film solely in terms of continuity. Movies aren't study materials you have to memorize for some future test, they're works of entertainment to be enjoyed while you watch them. It's the immediate experience itself that matters. Why does it even matter if a film has sequels or not unless you like the film? First things first.
I've seen plnty of the trailers. Maybe the trailers aren't very good? It looks more like Dungeons and Dragons than a sequel to the first to me. Kind of jarring to go from "Superhero meets Big" to Game of Thrones.