DC Extended Universe THREAD

[verslibre]

Then you argue about ratings and nudity and whatever. Did you any of you stop to think that nudity, language, and violence allowed in a PG movie back prior to the PG-13 was different than today? Most of that stuff would have to be cut to be allowed in a PG movie today.

That was my point. Apparently, TNC was unaware that a good number of PG-rated films back in the day had nudity. Linda Dey's completely naked in that Looker scene, and they didn't cut around her.

[verslibre]

Then you all got into "For Her Majesty's Secret Service", which, frankly, most people barely recongnize. You may as well throw in "Never Say Never Again" and "Ffolks"...and, IMO, "Ffolks" is probably the least known but is the better story and film of the three.

Ffolkes isn't a Bond movie, though. But hey, it does have Michael Parks.

[verslibre]

Yet another shot that got cut from the TC: Batman flipping a Parademon #likeaboss

https://twitter.com/burbank_isaac/status/1013534299885170688

[YoungJRNYfan]

Yet another shot that got cut from the TC: Batman flipping a Parademon #likeaboss

https://twitter.com/burbank_isaac/status/1013534299885170688

Now that's THE MOTHER FUCKIN BATFLECK that I know.

[YoungJRNYfan]

Sources: Jeremy Conrad tweeted "whispers" along with an image from Man of Steel. Said there may be some kind of big news coming soon. There's a big trade working on it apparently, according to him. Possibly before SDCC. #Superman

[RedWingFan]

Releasing a Batman movie in 2013 with a new actor would've been stupid. It would have only cheapened the franchise and probably pissed off fans, too. Think about it.

You think WB is concerned about cheapening a franchise? You mean like introducing main characters via e-mail?

[YoungJRNYfan]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AwgPtAKTfq8

[verslibre]

Releasing a Batman movie in 2013 with a new actor would've been stupid. It would have only cheapened the franchise and probably pissed off fans, too. Think about it.

You think WB is concerned about cheapening a franchise? You mean like introducing main characters via e-mail?

You mean like making a movie like Ragnarok a comedy when a major plot point is genocide?

[Monker]

Ffolkes isn't a Bond movie, though.

That is true. But, it has Roger Moore and it is pretty much in that same style...without all of the campyness that came with Moore's Bond. I would much rather rewatch Ffolkes than say, "Moonraker".

[RedWingFan]

Releasing a Batman movie in 2013 with a new actor would've been stupid. It would have only cheapened the franchise and probably pissed off fans, too. Think about it.

You think WB is concerned about cheapening a franchise? You mean like introducing main characters via e-mail?

You mean like making a movie like Ragnarok a comedy when a major plot point is genocide?

At least it had a plot point.

[YoungJRNYfan]

The future is Stand-Alone, with very few crossovers. Probably for the best. I trust Jenkins, Wan, Reeves and Sandberg to deliver their own great stand-alone Superhero films. Then someday down the road they'll crossover again (and this time they'll make it work) #DCEU

[verslibre]

A Hamada tweet?

[The_Noble_Cause]

Exactly my reaction to your "IW out while BP still in theaters" comment.

Here's what you said: "To append TDKT would be to devalue it. How you're unable, or unwilling, to acknowledge that is telling. 2013-2014 would have been too soon for another Batman film with a different actor in the role."

To counter this I mentioned how Marvel has many films in release simultaneously. Some (like BP and IW) even feature the same characters. So the idea the audiences needs a rest from a character is based on nothing. Kilmer replaced Keaton after 2-3 years and it had no impact on box office.

Neither Ant-Man nor Wasp are in Infinity War. Some people were disappointed at Black Panther's limited involvement in Infinity War. But they weren't about to go back and shoot a bunch of peripheral T'challa yak scenes to wedge in there. They didn't know Black Panther would be as successful a movie as it's now known. Captain America had less screen time than anticipated, and just like Civil War, Iron Man again got too much.

The point still stands that Marvel has multiple films in release featuring the same characters. The idea that Batman needed a good long rest after TDKR is based on nothing.

Releasing a Batman movie in 2013 with a new actor would've been stupid. It would have only cheapened the franchise and probably pissed off fans, too. Think about it.

Clumsily inserting Batfleck into the MOS universe managed to do all of the above. As a result, we now have Reeves doing a reboot of some kind. Which is what DC should have done after TDKR in the first place. Like I said, back to square one....

[The_Noble_Cause]

You think WB is concerned about cheapening a franchise? You mean like introducing main characters via e-mail?

LOL!

[The_Noble_Cause]

First, Bond. From what I remember, when Roger Moore was winding down his career, Pierce Brosnan was in Rem,ington Steele and was a natural for the role. He didn't take it because he didn't want to be type cast...which I always thought was a stupid move.

What you remember is false. Brosnan was cast as Bond and Remington was cancelled. Then NBC renewed Remington.

Then you all got into "For Her Majesty's Secret Service", which, frankly, most people barely recongnize.

I think over the years appreciated for OHMSS has grown, at least critically and by die-hards. Just my perception.

You may as well throw in "Never Say Never Again" and "Ffolks"...and, IMO, "Ffolks" is probably the least known but is the better story and film of the three.

Ffolks is not a Bond movie. Would you also throw in Zardoz or The Untouchables because it stars Connery?

Did you any of you stop to think that nudity, language, and violence allowed in a PG movie back prior to the PG-13 was different than today? Most of that stuff would have to be cut to be allowed in a PG movie today.

Actually, ratings standards have become more lax. Not the other way around.

[verslibre]

Exactly my reaction to your "IW out while BP still in theaters" comment.

Here's what you said: "To append TDKT would be to devalue it. How you're unable, or unwilling, to acknowledge that is telling. 2013-2014 would have been too soon for another Batman film with a different actor in the role."

To counter this I mentioned how Marvel has many films in release simultaneously.

Two, at most. Again: so what?

Some (like BP and IW) even feature the same characters.

I repeat: so what? Boseman's still a relative newcomer to the MCU. Everyone else you saw in Black Panther was brand new to the franchise, minus Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis, who showed up, respectively, in Civil War and Age of Ultron.

So the idea the audiences needs a rest from a character is based on nothing. Kilmer replaced Keaton after 2-3 years and it had no impact on box office.

BvS was originally slated for 2015 and got pushed back to 2016. If that's what you're looking for, that's what you got. You implied in another post Batman should have been rebooted immediately, to which I said 2013 was too soon. That was Superman's year. That was the plan. MoS was the reboot Superman desperately needed. Bryan Singer's flaccid Donner-knockback nostalgia-fellating attempt was DOA.

Batman Forever arrived three years after Returns. So again, no to a 2-year gap...until the next movie. And we all know how THAT turned out.

Neither Ant-Man nor Wasp are in Infinity War. Some people were disappointed at Black Panther's limited involvement in Infinity War. But they weren't about to go back and shoot a bunch of peripheral T'challa yak scenes to wedge in there. They didn't know Black Panther would be as successful a movie as it's now known. Captain America had less screen time than anticipated, and just like Civil War, Iron Man again got too much.

The point still stands that Marvel has multiple films in release featuring the same characters. The idea that Batman needed a good long rest after TDKR is based on nothing.

Your opinion. And your "point" is supported by two flimsy water-logged stilts composed of those biodegradable paper straws they want the country to switch to to cut down on waste.

"Featuring the same characters" is one helluva weak point. Like I said, only T'Challa and some of the support cast show up in Infinity War, and it's for the third act battle. They have no arcs in that film. They're there to fight. Ant-Man and the Wasp are not in that movie.

Releasing a Batman movie in 2013 with a new actor would've been stupid. It would have only cheapened the franchise and probably pissed off fans, too. Think about it.

Clumsily inserting Batfleck into the MOS universe managed to do all of the above. As a result, we now have Reeves doing a reboot of some kind. Which is what DC should have done after TDKR in the first place. Like I said, back to square one....

Now you're just making up stuff. There is no "as a result" in the nonexistent equation you scribbled. Batman is always going to return in his own solo films. Always. 2012-2020 is a span of eight years between solo Batman films.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Two, at most. Again: so what?

Again, Marvel can succeed with multiple movies in simultaneous release with the same character(s).
This disproves the idea that Batman requires a rest period of indeterminate time.

Batman Forever arrived three years after Returns. So again, no to a 2-year gap...until the next movie.

Ah, so now you want to debate whether two years vs. three years is an adequate resting time for a major franchise? Get off it, dude.

And we all know how THAT turned out.

Both Schumacher films suck. Not the point.

Your opinion. And your "point" is supported by two flimsy water-logged stilts composed of those biodegradable paper straws they want the country to switch to to cut down on waste.

And your point (that TDKR couldn't be followed by another Bat film) is based on ZERO examples at all.

"Featuring the same characters" is one helluva weak point. Like I said, only T'Challa and some of the support cast show up in Infinity War, and it's for the third act battle. They have no arcs in that film. They're there to fight. Ant-Man and the Wasp are not in that movie.

Where is your proof to back up the claim that TDKR couldn't be followed by another successful Bat film?

Now you're just making up stuff. There is no "as a result" in the nonexistent equation you scribbled. Batman is always going to return in his own solo films. Always. 2012-2020 is a span of eight years between solo Batman films.

After Reeves' film, I fully expect another Bat film to be greenlighted instantly.
Meanwhile, you guys will still be looking for MOS 2 clues on Cavill's instagram feed.
The Snyderverse failed and DC is licking their wounds. Reality's a bitch.

[verslibre]

Two, at most. Again: so what?

Again, Marvel can succeed with multiple movies in simultaneous release with the same character(s).

You act as though DC having multiple movies in wide release someday is some kind of supernatural impossibility enabled only by the return of Comet Hale-Bopp. DC's films do extremely well on home video and streaming formats. If they choose to keep their movies in theaters for a long time, like Wonder Woman,, they make money. If they pull them and release them on Blu-ray, DVD and digital, they're make money. The exception, naturally and expectedly, is Justice League, which crapped out at the box office and has collected only about 50 million on Blu/DVD.

One day we'll have a Batman movie out for a long time and then another DC CBM will land. It's inevitable.

This disproves the idea that Batman requires a rest period of indeterminate time.

It isn't so much about burnout as it was the high critical impact Nolan's trilogy had. A solo Batman film just two years after Rises may not have performed that well with the memory of BatBale still oven-fresh. For the same reason, you're not going to see Iron Man recast after Downey leaves. That's why they're just bringing in different characters. And making Scott Lang the new buffoon.

Batman Forever arrived three years after Returns. So again, no to a 2-year gap...until the next movie.

Ah, so now you want to debate whether two years vs. three years is an adequate resting time for a major franchise? Get off it, dude.

Ha! You misread my sentence (but still responded to it below)...

And we all know how THAT turned out.

Both Schumacher films suck. Not the point.

...no, Batman Forever is watchable. Just open a beer. Batman and Robin is not at all watchable, and moreover, it's downright painful. All B&R prints should be burned and all digital copies should be irreversibly corroded.

And, yeah, that IS the point. With one film, WB put the Bat franchise back in the cave until Nolan rescued it by serving us a trilogy that eschewed camp. And you know that.

Your opinion. And your "point" is supported by two flimsy water-logged stilts composed of those biodegradable paper straws they want the country to switch to to cut down on waste.

And your point (that TDKR couldn't be followed by another Bat film) is based on ZERO examples at all.

Not 24 fuckin' months later the way you think. Hence my earlier point about devaluing/cheapening. There's a legacy to maintain. What Joss did — granted, what certain higher-ups enabled, too — was damage a legacy. Thanks to what happened, we got new jokey Batman memes and #moustachegate. All because some guys felt their bonuses were more important. Whatever new rides those guys picked up at the dealership, I hope they're enjoying them. They're doing so at our expense.

"Featuring the same characters" is one helluva weak point. Like I said, only T'Challa and some of the support cast show up in Infinity War, and it's for the third act battle. They have no arcs in that film. They're there to fight. Ant-Man and the Wasp are not in that movie.

Where is your proof to back up the claim that TDKR couldn't be followed by another successful Bat film?

Just reread everything I've written. You're welcome.

After Reeves' film, I fully expect another Bat film to be greenlighted instantly.

You numbskull. Reeves has mapped out a trilogy.

Meanwhile, you guys will still be looking for MOS 2 clues on Cavill's instagram feed.

I hope the reservoir in that pen tucked over your ear is full.

The Snyderverse failed and DC is licking their wounds. Reality's a bitch.

If everything's so black and white with you, why are Wonder Woman (an extremely successful CBM) and Aquaman, the forthcoming film from James Wan (who happens to be an extremely successful filmmaker), both a part of the same continuity?

I'm going to put my feet up, take a sip, and wait for your calculated response to that nugget.

[RedWingFan]

Some (like BP and IW) even feature the same characters. So the idea the audiences needs a rest from a character is based on nothing

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one TNC....Superman.

[YoungJRNYfan]

A Hamada tweet?

Daniel K on twitter. I think Henry and Gal will cross over the most. Their standalones will be important to the wider DCU and Reeves' The Batman will set up the Bat-verse.

[YoungJRNYfan]

As soon as Reeves has Batman up and running, that will become the main cash cow. Many characters will be ignored completely.

I'm curious what characters you think will be ignored? You simply don't know what the landscape of these films will be by the time Reeves' The Batman takes flight. The Box Office could be totally flipped by then and franchise's like Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Shazam! could be well rounded at that point. There's room for many in the CBM landscape. If these films do well at the BO, there's no need to completely ignore characters when the genre calls for more. Reeve's The Batman doing well will only strengthen the case for the studio to churn out more material, especially in the face of their new streaming channel. They need content and a large chunk of that content will come from the big screen.

In other words, don't hold your breath for a Cyborg movie anytime soon.

Round of applause for going out on such a limb with this one. Don't be chicken-shit and single out a random featured character. If Reeves' The Batman does well, that opens up the Bat-verse. Chris McKay is headlining 'Nightwing' and it's been confirmed that casting is underway. Nightwing could open up fan favorite properties like 'Teen Titans', a team-up concept where a character like Cyborg will thrive in in comparison to a standalone. Films evolve and the slated 'Cryborg' film could eventually end up transforming into Teen Titans. Just like how 'Gotham City Sirens' morphed into 'Birds of Prey' where Harley Quinn will feature.

You have no idea.

Say hello to your friend, Kettle for me.

If you had your finger on the pulse of the DCEU you would have been calling many of the firings/demotions before they happened.

Everything was so obvious but the shift actually wasn't as big as I was anticipating. For the life of me, I have no fucking clue how Kevin Tsujihara wasn't shit-canned where he would be forced to lick the bottom of urinals for a living after what he did to JL.

You are just a constant cheerleader.

Pay attention. My frustrations have been minced on numerous occasions. No secret there. But I'm a half-glass-full type person by nature when I have a reason to. And since I do have a pulse on what's going on, I'm confident in the future DCEU. We'll see what Aquaman, Shazam! and Wonder Woman: 1984 bring to the table. We'll see in less than 3 weeks.

..in the face of The Legion of Doom.

Fixed.

Nonsense. That's like saying Tim Burton owned the character.

It's not. Nolan brought the Bat-franchise back from the chilling depths of death that consisted of George Clooney and Bat-Nipples. There are certain powerhouses in Hollywood that control their say and Nolan, especially in the Warner Brothers Lot, is one of them. The studio granted him major control over what came next. Zack even called Chris up to get his blessing.

It is ironic that you mention Tim Burton, who was fired because soccer moms from all over the nation wrote in their journals and sent those into WB headquarters about 'Batman Returns' being too dark and not right for children. Was Michael Keaton fired? No. He saw the writing on the wall and walked and Zack ultimately did the same.

and go on about WB should have just made another Bat flick and kept the dark tone. Gradually, expand the universe from there.

Bale wasn't walking through that door. There was no universe to expand. Nolan slammed that door with TDKRises. Eventually, this is essentially what they did when they brought in Affleck and what Reeve's is hard at work orchestrating right now.

Easter eggs don't introduce anything. In many cases. they are hidden for only the most die-hard fans. So, no, that's not how you go about building a cinematic universe with mass appeal. Sorry.

Zack is on record explaining countless of times that his Man of Steel was an open concept world where other hero's exist. That's what he intended. Man of Steel's ending didn't box that theory into a corner. There was no teased Joker-Card. They left the ending exposed to be takin' in any direction.

The Snyderverse failed and DC is licking their wounds.

Licking their wounds? By gearing up to have one huge impact by bringing footage of their next slated films on the biggest nerd-cultured stage the United States has to offer? Give it up, dude.

Reality's a bitch.

Start living in it.

[YoungJRNYfan]

Fucking wow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxEPFmTZeL0

[verslibre]

Sweet!

[verslibre]

First peek at Reeves' The Batman.

[verslibre]

Looks like Jay did some stompin' again today.

[verslibre]

Margot Robbie just confirmed that the R-rated budget-conscious Birds of Prey film will shoot in January.

https://batman-news.com/2018/07/06/margot-robbie-r-rated-small-budget-birds-of-prey-january/

[The_Noble_Cause]

That is true. But, it has Roger Moore and it is pretty much in that same style...without all of the campyness that came with Moore's Bond. I would much rather rewatch Ffolkes than say, "Moonraker".

In other words, NOT a Bond movie and about as relevant to this discussion as Boat Trip also starring Moore as an aging spy (who claims to have turned Elton John gay).

[The_Noble_Cause]

DC's films do extremely well on home video and streaming formats.

So it's not longer a "cinematic" universe but a straight to DVD one?

If they choose to keep their movies in theaters for a long time, like Wonder Woman,, they make money. If they pull them and release them on Blu-ray, DVD and digital, they're make money. The exception, naturally and expectedly, is Justice League, which crapped out at the box office and has collected only about 50 million on Blu/DVD.

JL's flaccid box office aside, the DC universe has be plagued with all sorts of other major issues.

For the same reason, you're not going to see Iron Man recast after Downey leaves.

That's not what Marvel has been saying at all: "I believe there will be a fourth Iron Man film and a fifth and a sixth and a 10th and a 20th".... "I see no reason why Tony Stark can't be as evergreen as James Bond. Or Batman for that matter."

And, yeah, that IS the point. With one film, WB put the Bat franchise back in the cave until Nolan rescued it by serving us a trilogy that eschewed camp. And you know that.

Batman Forever was a studio-mandated course correction to the overly dark Returns. Batman & Robin then swung too far in the opposite direction. The series didn't need rescuing. WB should have just made a better fifth entry. Similar to how Bond went full blown camp with Moonraker and then came back to espionage with For Your Eyes Only.

Not 24 fuckin' months later the way you think. Hence my earlier point about devaluing/cheapening. There's a legacy to maintain.

Legacy of what? Selling happy meal toys? You claim the Nolan Bat series is sacrosanct, yet WB later shamelessly used Nolan's name to help hype MOS / Justice League.
They should have just made another Bat film.

You numbskull. Reeves has mapped out a trilogy.

Yea? So? And at one point Justice League was a guaranteed two-parter. You don't know anything.

If everything's so black and white with you, why are Wonder Woman (an extremely successful CBM) and Aquaman, the forthcoming film from James Wan (who happens to be an extremely successful filmmaker), both a part of the same continuity?

I'm going to put my feet up, take a sip, and wait for your calculated response to that nugget.

Guess you didn't get the memo. The DC Universe is moving toward stand alone features without much in the way of connective tissue. This was just confirmed again as recently as this week.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I'm curious what characters you think will be ignored? You simply don't know what the landscape of these films will be by the time Reeves' The Batman takes flight. The Box Office could be totally flipped by then and franchise's like Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Shazam! could be well rounded at that point. There's room for many in the CBM landscape. If these films do well at the BO, there's no need to completely ignore characters when the genre calls for more. Reeve's The Batman doing well will only strengthen the case for the studio to churn out more material, especially in the face of their new streaming channel. They need content and a large chunk of that content will come from the big screen.

Reeves is doing his own thing with Batman. He is not interested in helping to prop up a creatively-stillborn universe.

Round of applause for going out on such a limb with this one. Don't be chicken-shit and single out a random featured character. If Reeves' The Batman does well, that opens up the Bat-verse. Chris McKay is headlining 'Nightwing' and it's been confirmed that casting is underway. Nightwing could open up fan favorite properties like 'Teen Titans', a team-up concept where a character like Cyborg will thrive in in comparison to a standalone. Films evolve and the slated 'Cryborg' film could eventually end up transforming into Teen Titans. Just like how 'Gotham City Sirens' morphed into 'Birds of Prey' where Harley Quinn will feature.

I just said that Reeves' Bat film will make Batman the center of the DC universe. Your rejoinder?

"If Reeves' The Batman does well, that opens up the Bat-verse."

Is there an echo in here? Helloooo?

It's not. Nolan brought the Bat-franchise back from the chilling depths of death that consisted of George Clooney and Bat-Nipples.

One bad entry in a franchise is not the end of the world. WB mishandled that. B&R under-performed compared to Batman Forever. I actually think Forever is WORSE than B&R. At least B&R is confidant in its kitsch take. Both Schumacher films suck. WB should have just made a better Batman 5.

It is ironic that you mention Tim Burton, who was fired because soccer moms from all over the nation wrote in their journals and sent those into WB headquarters about 'Batman Returns' being too dark and not right for children. Was Michael Keaton fired? No. He saw the writing on the wall and walked and Zack ultimately did the same.

Huh? Zack was fired by WB. Keaton walked because he was loyal to Tim (he also hated the suit). No comparison.

Bale wasn't walking through that door. There was no universe to expand. Nolan slammed that door with TDKRises. Eventually, this is essentially what they did when they brought in Affleck and what Reeve's is hard at work orchestrating right now.

You're contradicting yourself. You say the universe starts and stops with Nolan/Bale but is now continuing with Affleck/Reeves. Which is it?

Zack is on record explaining countless of times that his Man of Steel was an open concept world where other hero's exist.

Show don't tell. That shared hero universe is not on the screen in MOS. Everything in BvsS feels like a retcon.

Licking their wounds? By gearing up to have one huge impact by bringing footage of their next slated films on the biggest nerd-cultured stage the United States has to offer? Give it up, dude.

Standalone films are not a cinematic universe. DC is effectively flying the white flag of defeat. You just don't realize it's over.

[verslibre]

DC's films do extremely well on home video and streaming formats.

So it's not longer a "cinematic" universe but a straight to DVD one?

Stop pressing the spin-cycle button repeatedly. You're wearing it out and the warranty's toast.

If they choose to keep their movies in theaters for a long time, like Wonder Woman,, they make money. If they pull them and release them on Blu-ray, DVD and digital, they're make money. The exception, naturally and expectedly, is Justice League, which crapped out at the box office and has collected only about 50 million on Blu/DVD.

JL's flaccid box office aside, the DC universe has be plagued with all sorts of other major issues.

Which franchise isn't? Heard a lot about Star Wars lately, haven't you? Guess which movie made more money, Justice League or Solo?

Aw, hell. Let me save you the trouble. Justice League CLOBBERED Solo! A freakin' Star Wars movie!

Worldwide: $657,924,295
Worldwide: $371,904,265

And since Ron Howard reshot 80% of the movie, you can bet Disney's red column for Solo is way higher than JL's.

For the same reason, you're not going to see Iron Man recast after Downey leaves.

That's not what Marvel has been saying at all: "I believe there will be a fourth Iron Man film and a fifth and a sixth and a 10th and a 20th".... "I see no reason why Tony Stark can't be as evergreen as James Bond. Or Batman for that matter."

F-meister says what he thinks people want to hear. You wanted to hear that, so he said it. You bought it. Yet no Iron Man 4 is in development. They're focusing on other characters in preparation for Downey's and Evans' inevitable exit.

Instead, they rely on Downey's presence in other movies, like Homecoming, Civil War (as much screen time as Evans) and Infinity War (at the expense of other actors I wanted to see more of). They're milking him like a cow teat.

And, yeah, that IS the point. With one film, WB put the Bat franchise back in the cave until Nolan rescued it by serving us a trilogy that eschewed camp. And you know that.

Batman Forever was a studio-mandated course correction to the overly dark Returns.

"Overly dark" had fuck-all to do with it. Returns was made for 2.5X more and it made a lot less domestically and worldwide. Forever did better domestically but it did a lot better overseas. And Kilmer was a more than solid Bruce Wayne. It's too bad he didn't stick around.

Batman & Robin then swung too far in the opposite direction.

They realized the hard way that Batman '66 had its time. The show is still the superior end product, and Adam West is still a better Bruce Wayne and Batman than George Clooney could ever hope to be.

The series didn't need rescuing. WB should have just made a better fifth entry. Similar to how Bond went full blown camp with Moonraker and then came back to espionage with For Your Eyes Only.

WB was in no short supply of ideas and pitches. Batman and Robin's stain had to wear off. It was akin a bacterial weapon with a long-lasting stench.

I like Moonraker. It made more than both The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only, too, both domestically and overseas. Check the numbers. I like all of Moore's movies.

Not 24 fuckin' months later the way you think. Hence my earlier point about devaluing/cheapening. There's a legacy to maintain.

Legacy of what? Selling happy meal toys? You claim the Nolan Bat series is sacrosanct, yet WB later shamelessly used Nolan's name to help hype MOS / Justice League.

I still don't see why you have some kind of problem with Nolan's involvement in Man of Steel. And before you wiggle your fingers over your keyboard, Nolan's exec title on that film wasn't "marquee space filler." He's the one who brought Goyer's treatment to the studio.

Nolan's name wasn't pimped to promote Justice League anywhere near the level you're suggesting. Tone down the hysterics, man. WB was too busy promoting Dunkirk. Nolan's hits just keep on comin'!

They should have just made another Bat film.

Had they released one in 1999, it might have performed far below expectations short of bringing back Nicholson as the Joker. And that would have been very, very expensive. The "rumor" back then was that Jeff Goldblum was going to be Scarecrow and his chemically-derived arsenal was going to make Batman hallucinate the return of Joker-Jack. But I never bought into that because I didn't believe they could get Jack back. Jack made it painfully apparent he did that role for the moola. And he was paid a lot for it.

You numbskull. Reeves has mapped out a trilogy.

Yea? So? And at one point Justice League was a guaranteed two-parter. You don't know anything.

Says the guy who doesn't know Reeves' plans. "Yea? So?" Are we two degrees away from "Your momma's so fat" jokes?

WTF does Justice League's change from a two-film arc to a one-film Joss-splat have anything to do with Reeves? Nothing, that's what. You're spinning your wheels.

If everything's so black and white with you, why are Wonder Woman (an extremely successful CBM) and Aquaman, the forthcoming film from James Wan (who happens to be an extremely successful filmmaker), both a part of the same continuity?

I'm going to put my feet up, take a sip, and wait for your calculated response to that nugget.

Guess you didn't get the memo. The DC Universe is moving toward stand alone features without much in the way of connective tissue. This was just confirmed again as recently as this week.

That diminishes continuity how? It doesn't. So they aren't making a team film in the next several years. "Yea? So?"

Guess you didn't get the memo about Birds of Prey filming this coming January. What's that? Yet another DC movie headed into production? With Margot Robbie reprising her role as Harley Quinn? People are already forking over their cash.

This quote from the film Gladiator is totally about you!

"He enters Rome like a conquering hero. But what has he conquered?"