The Flash | June 16 2023 | Ezra Miller, Michael Keaton | We’re stoping the count at a Nice 69% RT (it’s 72% For Real) | Please Remember that Your Enjoyment Of The Film is Not Based On Others Opinions And To Be Nice To Each Other

[charlie Jatinder]

14 minutes ago, keysersoze123 said:

From a hype perspective Batman 89 >>> Dark Knight. WB marketing just blanketed it everywhere. I personally did not like batman 89 when I saw it as a kid. l liked it better when I watched it as an adult 🙂

 

 

All that being true I don’t think it really means anything.

 

If instead of Keaton it was Bale, this would possibly be opening double of what’s its looking now. WBD messed up.

[JustLurking]

2 hours ago, John Marston said:

Like Black Adam, WB is going to use spoiler marketing. Don’t click if you don’t want any spoilers 

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/the-flash-cameo-nicolas-cage-superman-1235623843/

 

 

 

I wonder if people really care about these. At the end of the day it's just an appearance of a character we only know by name, played by an actor that is well past his commercial prime as a one-off. I dunno.

 

What I would be really interested in knowing is how much higher this would be tracking if they had Bale alongside Keaton instead. Can't help but think Nolan's trilogy is just way more popular and well-known nowadays.

[robertman2]

If they were cool, they would have used Kevin Conroy

[kayumanggi]

 

[The GOAT]

 

[ChipDerby]

9 hours ago, JustLurking said:

I do not really agree with this. This is a visual medium, how good a film looks is a direct correlation to its ability to entertain and immerse you in the story it is trying to tell. A great movie with bad vfx is not as great a movie as a great movie with great vfx 🙂

 

And for this film in particular...yeah. I didn't dislike the trailer per se but VFX looks rough as hell in this, particularly in that first half.

 

Pre-2000s movies suck, per this guy!

[ChipDerby]

7 hours ago, John Marston said:

 

 

 

 

Joke's on you, this isn't CGI.

[JustLurking]

8 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

 

Pre-2000s movies suck, per this guy!

Pre-2000 movies looked great for their time. Some of the absolute best films of that time were complete technical achievements as well. Do you think Jurassic Park or Terminator 2 would have been regarded so highly if they looked like shit? No, they wouldn't.

 

It's a visual media. It's ok to admit visuals matter too. It doesn't make you shallow to like looking at something pretty, you know?

[eddyxx]

7 hours ago, Maggie said:

I just realized this thread was made by Neo. Remember him? Could this be the oldest thread on BOT?

I just read the first page. A trip down memory lane but some of those posts could’ve easily been made in the current year lol.

[eddyxx]

7 hours ago, John Marston said:

 

 

 

I didn’t like the Snyder suit but they didn’t have to make this one look like a red S&M suit either. He looks like a red gimp.

[ChipDerby]

2 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

Pre-2000 movies looked great for their time. Some of the absolute best films of that time were complete technical achievements as well. Do you think Jurassic Park or Terminator 2 would have been regarded so highly if they looked like shit? No, they wouldn't.

 

It's a visual media. It's ok to admit visuals matter too. It doesn't make you shallow to like looking at something pretty, you know?

 

There are exceptions, like those mentioned. But I'm not judging a movie for its "time". Jason and the Argonauts looks like garbage. There's a reason (many) Dune is 100000x better than the original, and it's the VFX. If anything, pre-2000s movies prove that a movie can be good and have just shit VFX. 

 

There are far far far fewer examples of movies that are bad, but made better due to the VFX. 

[ddddeeee]

It has been said loads before, but it really is depressing to see Keaton's Batman in a not-great-visually movie.

[ChipDerby]

1 minute ago, ddddeeee said:

It has been said loads before, but it really is depressing to see Keaton's Batman in a not-great-visually movie.

 

Depressing to who? Y'all are so weird. He looks great. The movie looks great. Iffy VFX here and there, but there's going to literally be VFX in every single shot of the film. That's expected.

[JustLurking]

1 minute ago, ChipDerby said:

 

There are exceptions, like those mentioned. But I'm not judging a movie for its "time". Jason and the Argonauts looks like garbage. There's a reason (many) Dune is 100000x better than the original, and it's the VFX. If anything, pre-2000s movies prove that a movie can be good and have just shit VFX. 

 

There are far far far fewer examples of movies that are bad, but made better due to the VFX. 

Except I quite literally did not say shit VFX makes a shit film. Nor that a shit film will be made great solely through great CGI. I said a great film with great VFX is better than a great film with shit VFX. So your post is just agreeing with me if anything.

 

It is simply not right to pretend how a film looks (which, for the record, goes much further than just the quality of its CGI) isn't an important component of the medium.

[ChipDerby]

Are the remastered Star Wars films better than the originals? Because that would surely prove your point.

 

ANYWAY, got my tickets for the 15th. Can't wait. Excited to see the FULL film and to see if there's anything about the future of the DCU in it.

[cookie]

Saw a screening of this earlier today. Thought the movie was good, but not great. If I have to predict Cinemascore I would say... A-?

[TheDude391]

25 minutes ago, ddddeeee said:

It has been said loads before, but it really is depressing to see Keaton's Batman in a not-great-visually movie.

I think it's why the nostalgia angle for him ain't working on me. He's just cut and paste into this movie, no elements retained of what made his version great/distinct on display.

[21C]

Between The Flash and Justice League I kinda wonder if this means that Batman isn't that big a draw in team-up films. It'd make sense since audiences have been conditioned to think of Batman as a solo property, and his most succesful incarnations have been the "grounded" ones.  The fact Flash points to be opening significantly lower than The Batman even though The Batman was a new incarnation of the character and Flash has Keaton, seems to point to that as well.

Perhaps grounded/realistic solo Batman truly is the Batman that modern audiences prefer. Something that Gunn will have to keep in mind. 

[Johnny Tran]

This thread is a mess because posters have agendas.  They don't want The Flash to do well because it hurts their "comic book fatigue" theories or they are biased because they don't like the studio.... etc...  

 

Nobody including the people in the buzz thread have any clue if this will be a hit or not.  They have no clue.  It's three weeks out.  The hype from here can die down,  it can also increase based on early screening reactions etc...

[JWR]

4 minutes ago, 21C said:

Between The Flash and Justice League I kinda wonder if this means that Batman isn't that big a draw in team-up films. It'd make sense since audiences have been conditioned to think of Batman as a solo property, and his most succesful incarnations have been the "grounded" ones.  The fact Flash points to be opening significantly lower than The Batman even though The Batman was a new incarnation of the character and Flash has Keaton, seems to point to that as well.

Perhaps grounded/realistic solo Batman truly is the Batman that modern audiences prefer. Something that Gunn will have to keep in mind. 

 

I don't know if Justice League is a good example. They could have thrown the Teen Titans and Justice Society in that movie, yet it still would have had to pay for the sins of people not liking BvS.