Because I don't want to see Miller's career get saved at the last second by this movie being a massive hit. And I particularly don't want to see WB get rewarded for their disgusting strategy surrounding this whole mess. Especially since it would send a message to all the other studios that demanding accountability and providing a safe work environment is way worse for their bottom line than ignoring, enabling and obfuscating predatory behavior.
Given WB's constant refusal to acknowledge the problem, I doubt there will ever be any clear public evidence of if and exactly how often Miller went off during filming. Of course, whether they did or not doesn't really matter either way, imo.
You do realize there a lot more people than just Ezra Miller who were involved in the making of the movie, and most of them probably don't deserve to have their careers potentially damaged by a box office bomb.
I honestly don't see Miller keeping the role even if the movie is a huge success. Gunn obviously wants a mostly clean slate, Miller was definitely a problem for everyone for awhile and probably had a lot of WB execs pulling their hair out, and at this point the movie marketing seems to have pivoted (correctly, in my opinion) to as much of a Michael Keaton focused marketing campaign as they can for a movie titled The Flash. So, I'm not going to root against the movie by default. It looks like a movie I'll enjoy, and as of right now I can tolerate Miller's presence (as long as he doesn't have another horrible breakdown), especially to enjoy the Batman/Supergirl and general plot stuff. But I also get why someone would root against the movie or not support it. I didn't monetarily support Wakanda Forever or Quantumania because of my thoughts on some of their stars opinions on certain topics, although I did watch them for free on Disney+. The Flash just barely doesn't enter that territory for me, although admittedly if Ezra Miller had bit a bit more dangerous of an asshole it easily could have, so I understand people just not wanting to support or even watch the film because of him.
I think there are different reasons for one to justify watching or not watching for themselves but wouldn’t assume others haven’t thought their positions through for themselves.
JD's post has me leaning more towards going and seeing it, even though my feelings are also a lot like Grendelsbayne. At the end, I was excited for this movie before Miller had their breakdown, and seeing the trailers and being aware of the hard work put in by so many people to create this movie.... To not acknowledge what so many have done because of the horrible misdeeds of one, is also something that shouldn't be fair.
The universe is getting reset, nobody's coming back from this movie. Sad and bizarre to think Michael Keaton filmed another movie as Batman after this one, which has been buried.
IMO, this line of thinking is really just a massive red herring. The truth is people never have the slightest concern about not going to see a movie they think will be bad just because there might be some people involved who actually did a good job and don't deserve to fail. What Ezra Miller (and WB in response) has done is way worse and way more deserving of rebuke than a lead actor just not being very convincing or a writer being kind of cliche and boring, so if one is ok 'not supporting' good actors, fx people, etc who did their job well even though their film had a terrible lead or writer, one should not have a problem doing the same here. And really, if this movie clearly bombed as a result of Miller's situation, that's not going to seriously harm anyone's career (other than Miller, and one can hope at least, the people who decided to bet the whole film on Miller). The crew, fx crew, etc aren't really judged by box office either way, the writer and director are already established (and DC already hired Musschietti for further work) and the majority of the actors are either big enough not to actually need this film or playing too small a role to actually get a huge boost even if it's a hit. The worst case scenario is that Sasha Calle's career takes longer to take off than would otherwise be the case. Even then, assuming her performance truly merits a major career boost from this film, that performance will still be seen by casting directors and the various people in Hollywood who actually matter, even if the movie doesn't hit. And sad as it is for her debut to be overshadowed by Miller, it still wouldn't be any different for her than if the movie bombed due to a terrible script or awful FX, all of which would have been entirely not her fault. Eh, people put too much certainty in this kind of logic. If the movie is a modest hit, Miller probably isn't worth the risk (still, the less successful, the better as far as that goes). If it makes a massive splash (1b, 1.5b, etc) then the studio simply isn't going to throw that away. Even if Gunn wanted to stick to his guns for a full 100% reboot (which he already isn't doing, Viola Davis is sticking around too), Zaslav can overrule him whenever he likes. And DC is already running 'elseworlds' titles, like The Batman 2 and Joker 2 (another movie everyone swore would never happen no matter how succesful the first movie was) so nothing prevents them from just making The Flash 2, anyway. Even if they don't, if they genuinely decide Miller is the reason the movie was such a hit (which has been a significant theme of all their behind the scenes buzz) then they will keep Miller around in some capacity or other regardless of whether that's in the role of the Flash or not, and whether it's in DC movies or in some other movies instead.
"Don't deserve" Think about that one, JD. Anyone working on a film is merely a employee who were paid for services provided, and typically, they move on. A film--whether it succeeds, fails, or falls somewhere in-between--is not (in the grand scheme of things) going to harm the careers of those "lot more people" you refer to (assuming you're not talking about the director, writers and producers). Shareholders (the true string-pullers in all of this), and audiences are not going to attempt to end the careers of the random people employed to work on a film due to the failure of The Flash and/or a reaction to Miller. They (the employees) have already moved on, and will not suddenly have their livelihood snatched out from under them if this one film fails.
As you know, Keaton's A2 scenes were replaced by Affleck's...and his scenes were cut. You can guess what that implies about a sub-plot in The Flash. Regrettable, as I was looking forward to Affleck's great Wayne/Batman in A2.
Ah. So you're saying they don't actually care about their jobs and it's just a paycheck for them? The costume designers? The art department? THe set setdesigners? The make-up department? People who are putting in hours and hours and hours of work and just MIGHT be proud of what they did and where excited about seeing it on the big screen? Yup. They sure were just in there for the paycheck. By the way, considering the writers that are complaining about their paychecks and credits and who are getting a higher credit than the people I just mentioned.... Is it possible that the people I just mentioned are also getting snubbed by Hollydickheads? Sorry, I ment Hollybastards? Sorry, I ment Hollywood....
I feel like it's WB's "Nothing to see here. Everything is fine. We got a major profitable hit on our hands, so who cares about what the star did. We'll just bury it!" stance with Ezra that's making everything irritable. The whole thing reeks of corporate greed. This isn't a Bill Cosby or Stephen Collins situation where we learn about the atrocities decades after the fact. This is BEFORE the film has even premiered, making just watching Miller act as the lead and hero...difficult.
It is not about "not caring" about the job. It is employees not having their careers fall because one film under-performs or fails. Browse the credits of box office failures and see if any of the same employees moved on to work after the failed film. I'm suspecting they have, so JD's all-or-nothing theory was not built on a solid foundation.
In their defense, they essentially can't do anything else but release the film on its existing schedule, since it would be prohibitively costly to do anything else. Miller is so central to the film that they'd have to throw out the entire incredibly expensive movie and start from scratch in order to recast the lead role. I remember seeing articles explaining that they were basically stuck with this and just had to try to make the best of a bad situation. And that's not just about corporate profits; it's about everyone who made the movie getting the payments and residuals they're entitled to for the release of the work. Killing the film would hurt a lot of people other than Miller or the executives. They don't deserve that. And I don't see how releasing a work of entertainment that a person participated in making equates to "burying" what they did in any meaningful way. You don't address people's crimes in a movie theater, you address them in a court of law or in a rehab program. As long as that's being done in real life, I don't see how the makers of a work of entertainment are interfering with that in any way by releasing it.