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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
