Spoilers The Flash (2023) -Review and Discussion Thread

[Set Harth]

there had to be a consequence for Barry changing time again by giving (or being) his father in the footage

I don't know what this means... being his father?

leaving Cavil as pretty much the ONLY JLA character NOT show (beyond the CGI volcano eruption stopping bit really does seem like someone at WB just dislikes the actor for some reason.

You're forgetting someone.

 

[Christopher]

(And yeah, the pivot to promoting Michael Keaton and Batman as a big selling point for the film didn't help as no one in 1989 went to SEE Batman because of Keaton - the draw then was Jack Nicholson as The Joker,)

That argument makes little sense, because it isn't 1989 anymore, and Keaton's Batman has decades of nostalgia behind him to create interest. Not to mention that Keaton has done a lot more notable work since then, including Spider-Man: Homecoming and the acclaimed Birdman.

(And again, Miller is they/them, not he/him.)

 

[Noname Given]

I don't know what this means... being his father?

The point in the altered Timeline where he spoke to his mother. I wasn't sure if somehow that was the footage used as Barry made a point to look at the camera.

{quote]You're forgetting someone.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, okay...they left out Cyborg too - but I believe the actor has said he wouldn't come back even if asked after all the incidents between WB and him.

 

[Set Harth]

He did get a pseudo-namedrop in the film at least.

 

[Anwar]

I did wonder why Barry didn't try to leave that evidence that saved his dad in the past so he'd never spend decades in jail, but I guess he figured that would risk more timeline change stuff.

 

[Mage]

I did wonder why Barry didn't try to leave that evidence that saved his dad in the past so he'd never spend decades in jail, but I guess he figured that would risk more timeline change stuff.

Which basically underscores that Barry learned nothing from Keaton-Bruce's point that fixing even the tiniest thing in the past will ripple backwards and not only change the future but the past as well. So, putting the tomatoes on the topshelf may not have altered his past, but did change his future. Meaning a new past was created as well. Hence Clooney-Bruce.

 

[urbandefault]

Which basically underscores that Barry learned nothing from Keaton-Bruce's point that fixing even the tiniest thing in the past will ripple backwards and not only change the future but the past as well. So, putting the tomatoes on the topshelf may not have altered his past, but did change his future. Meaning a new past was created as well. Hence Clooney-Bruce.

I think this is what Affleck/Bruce was trying to explain to Barry. The tiniest variation could change everything.

 

[Christopher]

On reflection, the film's premise that changing the timeline just switched you into a different strand of the multiverse rather than altering your own reality kind of undermines it. That means that Barry didn't really change anything; he just moved himself into a different timeline where his parents lived, and then when that world was destroyed by Zod, he moved himself into a third timeline that was close to his original except where his father and Bruce Wayne were concerned. That's the flaw in stories that treat timelines as parallel yet still try to do the standard changing-history plot -- the protagonists aren't really changing or saving anything, just moving themselves into a timeline they like better than the coexisting alternatives.

Also, it's ironic, though unsurprising, that this film's theory of multiverse physics is incompatible with the Arrowverse and other alternate DC productions that pretend to be part of the same multiverse. Whenever Grant Gustin's Barry changed the timeline, it wasn't retroactive and didn't cause the kind of random changes seen here.

 

[The Realist]

Not aware that anybody ever noticed or pointed this out before, but during the film's closing scene, one of the offscreen reporters can (barely) be heard identifying himself as Jimmy Olsen of the Daily Planet:

https://twitter.com/NebsGoodTakes/status/1695879249604038800

Neat!

So I guess, on Earth-Clooney, Jimmy wasn't a CIA operative who got himself shot in Nairomi?

 

[Guy Gardener]

On reflection, the film's premise that changing the timeline just switched you into a different strand of the multiverse rather than altering your own reality kind of undermines it. That means that Barry didn't really change anything; he just moved himself into a different timeline where his parents lived, and then when that world was destroyed by Zod, he moved himself into a third timeline that was close to his original except where his father and Bruce Wayne were concerned. That's the flaw in stories that treat timelines as parallel yet still try to do the standard changing-history plot -- the protagonists aren't really changing or saving anything, just moving themselves into a timeline they like better than the coexisting alternatives.

Also, it's ironic, though unsurprising, that this film's theory of multiverse physics is incompatible with the Arrowverse and other alternate DC productions that pretend to be part of the same multiverse. Whenever Grant Gustin's Barry changed the timeline, it wasn't retroactive and didn't cause the kind of random changes seen here.

The imaginary temporal physics of the movie are the imaginary temporal Physics of the Flash Point Comics.

Barry saved his mum.

Events that happened before that to Clark, Diana, Bruce and Arthur was changed by "temporal Shock waves" from Barry saving his mum.

The movie inherited the dumb from the comics.

 

[Christopher]

So I guess, on Earth-Clooney, Jimmy wasn't a CIA operative who got himself shot in Nairomi?

Wasn't that character only identified as Jimmy Olsen in the Snyder Cut? In the theatrical version that's canonical to the DCEU, I think he's just some nameless guy.

 

[Set Harth]

Wrong movie. Every version of Dawn of Justice is a Snyder cut and identifies him. ( Also, it may have been WB's position that the 2017 version of Justice League is the canonical one, but The Flash ignored that. )

 

[The Realist]

Wasn't that character only identified as Jimmy Olsen in the Snyder Cut? In the theatrical version that's canonical to the DCEU, I think he's just some nameless guy.

I don't remember if he's identified as Jimmy in the theatrical cut of BvS or not, but I'm not aware that the "Ultimate Edition" has ever been disavowed as canonical. To me, it's the default version of the film. I've never even thought about watching the theatrical version again since the Blu-ray came out.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Both movies are canon.

 

[Christopher]

I don't remember if he's identified as Jimmy in the theatrical cut of BvS or not, but I'm not aware that the "Ultimate Edition" has ever been disavowed as canonical. To me, it's the default version of the film. I've never even thought about watching the theatrical version again since the Blu-ray came out.

Oh, right, it was BvS. I got it mixed up with Justice League, sorry.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Wrong movie. Every version of Dawn of Justice is a Snyder cut and identifies him. ( Also, it may have been WB's position that the 2017 version of Justice League is the canonical one, but The Flash ignored that. )

Odd, since a number of plot elements and characters in The Flash only exist thanks to ZSJL.

Both movies are canon.

Quite true.

 

[Set Harth]

It was pointed out to me that I 'deadnamed' Ezra Miller in the original version of this post. I apologize as I did forget how they see their self. It was not overtly intentional on my part. I have edited the post.

There was no deadnaming; the individual has always gone by the same name.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I just finished The Flash on Max, and overall it's relatively good. There's some good character stuff and drama, and the story works fairly well aside from my dislike of the whole Flashpoint premise. The main problem is that it often goes overboard with the slapstick. Supergirl is good but underutilized. The "glimpse at the multiverse" sequence in the climax was a poorly done interruption that undermined the story. By the same token, Wonder Woman's appearance in the first act seemed pointless, and the post-credits scene was an embarrassment. But aside from those minor annoyances, it's mostly pretty good. Keaton is a better Batman than I remember him being the first time.

Sadly, we're going to have to get used to this stupid (IMHO) slapstick going forward in DCCU movies; the Warner brass has fallen prey to the stupid (again, IMHO) popular public supposition that the Snyderverse is too 'dark' and that the DCCU (my term for DC Cinematic Universe) needs to be more like the MCU in tone () (that, and I predict the next incarnation of the DCCU as now run by James Gunn will most likely have a new Superman movie that will recreate-beat for beat-the tone and manner of Superman: The Movie, Superman II, and Superman Returns [most likely, this new Superman movie will have Superman fly Lois Lane around Metropolis as he's done the last two times we've seen him do it.]) All of this, because people couldn't accept that the approach used by Bryan Singer in Superman Returns, although it was a great movie, ultimately wasn't successful enough for Warners to continue with it (what I've said here in the past about the people who despised Man of Steel not doing what they should've done online to counter those toxic 'fans' who attacked Superman Returns and accused it of being 'wishy-washy' and 'gay', thus resulting in what I said would happen-namely the next movie would have Superman and the bad guy use Metropolis as a wrestling mat-came true with Man of Steel.) Now, they're going to bring back (for the Superman movies) the Donnerverse (the Superman movies made by Richard Donner) along with all of the comedy bits of those movies, even though the character has to fit a modern 2020's asthetic (as somebody else here said about the Kelvinverse Star Trek movies, they work for him [and for me] beccause they give Star Trek a 21st century spin; that's also how I feel about the Snyderverse Superman movies and the other movies with the other heroes.)

I might be wrong about this, and the Gunnverse might be a success, but that's just how I feel about things. My fear is that the movies will have the same silly tone as the Joel Schumacher Batman movies, or even worse, the tone of this 1975 movie about a certain 1930's pulp magazine adventurer (probably complete with a fight scene similar to what we saw at the end of said movie between said 1930's pulp hero and the antagonist.) Of course, that series will probably end up getting blasted like the Schumacher Batman movies for being a corny mess, but what can one do? As this song says, it'll be a case of history repeating itself.

 

[Anwar]

Sadly, we're going to have to get used to this stupid (IMHO) slapstick going forward in DCCU movies; the Warner brass has fallen prey to the stupid (again, IMHO) popular public supposition that the Snyderverse is too 'dark' and that the DCCU (my term for DC Cinematic Universe) needs to be more like the MCU in tone () (that, and I predict the next incarnation of the DCCU as now run by James Gunn will most likely have a new Superman movie that will recreate-beat for beat-the tone and manner of Superman: The Movie, Superman II, and Superman Returns [most likely, this new Superman movie will have Superman fly Lois Lane around Metropolis as he's done the last two times we've seen him do it.]) All of this, because people couldn't accept that the approach used by Bryan Singer in Superman Returns, although it was a great movie, ultimately wasn't successful enough for Warners to continue with it (what I've said here in the past about the people who despised Man of Steel not doing what they should've done online to counter those toxic 'fans' who attacked Superman Returns and accused it of being 'wishy-washy' and 'gay', thus resulting in what I said would happen-namely the next movie would have Superman and the bad guy use Metropolis as a wrestling mat-came true with Man of Steel.) Now, they're going to bring back (for the Superman movies) the Donnerverse (the Superman movies made by Richard Donner) along with all of the comedy bits of those movies, even though the character has to fit a modern 2020's asthetic (as somebody else here said about the Kelvinverse Star Trek movies, they work for him [and for me] beccause they give Star Trek a 21st century spin; that's also how I feel about the Snyderverse Superman movies and the other movies with the other heroes.)

I might be wrong about this, and the Gunnverse might be a success, but that's just how I feel about things. My fear is that the movies will have the same silly tone as the Joel Schumacher Batman movies, or even worse, the tone of this 1975 movie about a certain 1930's pulp magazine adventurer (probably complete with a fight scene similar to what we saw at the end of said movie between said 1930's pulp hero and the antagonist.) Of course, that series will probably end up getting blasted like the Schumacher Batman movies for being a corny mess, but what can one do? As this song says, it'll be a case of history repeating itself.

People disliked Superman Returns because it was all style and no substance. Bryan Singer made it clear he only cared about homaging Richard Donner and couldn't care less about Superman as a character

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Why do people seem to think that a binary exists that only consists of Snyder and Donner and nothing else can exist in between or outside of those options?