Film Batgirl movie cancelled

A knock on effect of the flash and Ezra Millers bullshit. Im sure they retool it and do another one once they have their ducks in a row. I heard that Affleck has been doing reshoots for Aquaman 2 because The flash was supposed to come on first, and introduce Keatons batman into the universe. But no flash, so Keaton as batman would be weird without the intro. And since theres no keaton, there cant be a batgirl. So lots of fecking about to do at DC to get everything back on track.
 
DC is a shambles in how it handles its movies.

I think this a positive tbh. The new CEO seems hell bent on doing things properly, so not being afraid to axe a project that's going to be shit in order to make sure what they put out is great going forwards even if it means a financial loss isn't that bad of a thing.
 
A knock on effect of the flash and Ezra Millers bullshit. Im sure they retool it and do another one once they have their ducks in a row. I heard that Affleck has been doing reshoots for Aquaman 2 because The flash was supposed to come on first, and introduce Keatons batman into the universe. But no flash, so Keaton as batman would be weird without the intro. And since theres no keaton, there cant be a batgirl. So lots of fecking about to do at DC to get everything back on track.

The Flash is still being released as far as we know?
 
So they spent 90M on the movie and decided that if the movie that bad got released, the PR loss is > 90M??
 
A knock on effect of the flash and Ezra Millers bullshit. Im sure they retool it and do another one once they have their ducks in a row. I heard that Affleck has been doing reshoots for Aquaman 2 because The flash was supposed to come on first, and introduce Keatons batman into the universe. But no flash, so Keaton as batman would be weird without the intro. And since theres no keaton, there cant be a batgirl. So lots of fecking about to do at DC to get everything back on track.
Wait flash has been cancelled?
 

Batgirl” found itself on the bad end of that decision, apparently neither big enough to feel worthy of a major theatrical release nor small enough to make economic sense in an increasingly cutthroat streaming landscape. Spending the money to expand the scope of “Batgirl” for theaters — plus the $30 million to $50 million needed to market it domestically and the tens of millions more needed for a global rollout — could have nearly doubled spending on the film, and insiders say that was a non-starter at a company newly focused on belt-tightening and the bottom line. (Spokespeople for Warner Bros. and Warner Bros. Discovery declined to comment for this story.)

Releasing the movie on HBO Max would seem to be the most obvious solution. Instead, the company has shelved “Batgirl” — along with the “Scoob!” sequel — and several sources say it will almost certainly take a tax write-down on both films, seen internally as the most financially sound way to recoup the costs (at least, on an accountant’s ledger). It could justify that by chalking it up to a post-merger change of strategy. Doing so, however, would mean that Warner Bros. cannot monetize either movie — no HBO Max debut, no sale to another studio. What the decision will cost the studio in creative capital, meanwhile, remains to be seen.


https://variety.com/2022/film/news/batgirl-movie-why-not-releasing-warner-bros-1235332062/
 
Cost 90 million so far, and it's almost finished but they have no plans on releasing it now. Not sure why they can't just finish it and release it, they'll make the money back easy enough.

https://www.thewrap.com/batgirl-mov...s-to-release-nearly-finished-90-million-film/

I think the only explanation is that they decided on a certain direction and quality and it doesnt meet it. If it was amazing I'm sure they'd release it for tv even though they only want to do cinematic stuff, because they'd be proud of it.

I cant say I was looking forward to it. Once again the lead didnt really seem like the Barbara Gordon of the comics, so I wasn't really anticipating it.
 
DC on paper should be killing Marvel at the box office, But with poor planning, they spent so much time trying to catch up to Marvel, that they lost focus.
 
DC on paper should be killing Marvel at the box office, But with poor planning, they spent so much time trying to catch up to Marvel, that they lost focus.
DC has great heroes and a fantastic range of villains. The batman villains gallery is just something with so much history and background.
Only Spidey villains from Marvel come close imo.

DC didnt even need to try that hard or overthink it given MCU gave them a blueprint.
 
It’ll see the light of day in a few years probably, build unnecessary hype because it’s finally getting released and still be terrible.

Ah just read that it can’t be monetised so maybe not.
 
Was there another film needed about a person with a bat fetish?

DC need to get some creativity.
 
DC on paper should be killing Marvel at the box office, But with poor planning, they spent so much time trying to catch up to Marvel, that they lost focus.

Why do you think they should be killing them when they obviously have a fanbase that watches almost everything they make and likes it regardless of how little difference there is? DC is a million miles from that
 
Why do you think they should be killing them when they obviously have a fanbase that watches almost everything they make and likes it regardless of how little difference there is? DC is a million miles from that
Personally I think DC comics have far more interesting material than Marvel
 
How bad could it have been? Even the new Jurassic World movie was in cinemas and the only good things in that pile of shite were DeWanda Wise's eyes.
 
Personally I think DC comics have far more interesting material than Marvel

I think so too because I'm a DC fan and have read far more of it than Marvel where I've only read any xmen really.

However, the material is never like the comics. Not even on the tv shows. They never do a comic to screen adaptation that feels authentic. Almost every time they are changing half of what a character looks like and what their background is likely to be from the comics. So when you keep making so many changes, you dont have much of the original material left.

But my point is that the marvel movies have a big fanbase and lots of success at this point. There will be a lot more hits than misses for them and they'll make loads of money and continue to be hyped up and talked about.

It would take a string of well received DC movies that make people think every new one is worth seeing, and it'll probably actually take better films than marvel movies to actually establish themselves like that because everything will be compared to Endgame, the peak of the marvel movies most would say. And that had a whole bunch of movies to build it up before so even if a movie was really good it would be hard to match that. Then theres the people who have decided they like Marvel so DC would have to wow them for them to take any notice.

So realistically right now a really good DC movie is still going to be a smaller success compared to an "average" Marvel movie.
 
@Sweet Square on self flagellation watch
:lol:
How bad could it have been? Even the new Jurassic World movie was in cinemas and the only good things in that pile of shite were DeWanda Wise's eyes.
There’s no way it’s been dumped because of quality control.

It seems for a number of economic factors, the film wasn’t going to make buckets of cash, so made more sense to ditch it now.
 
I think so too because I'm a DC fan and have read far more of it than Marvel where I've only read any xmen really.

However, the material is never like the comics. Not even on the tv shows. They never do a comic to screen adaptation that feels authentic. Almost every time they are changing half of what a character looks like and what their background is likely to be from the comics. So when you keep making so many changes, you dont have much of the original material left.

But my point is that the marvel movies have a big fanbase and lots of success at this point. There will be a lot more hits than misses for them and they'll make loads of money and continue to be hyped up and talked about.

It would take a string of well received DC movies that make people think every new one is worth seeing, and it'll probably actually take better films than marvel movies to actually establish themselves like that because everything will be compared to Endgame, the peak of the marvel movies most would say. And that had a whole bunch of movies to build it up before so even if a movie was really good it would be hard to match that. Then theres the people who have decided they like Marvel so DC would have to wow them for them to take any notice.

So realistically right now a really good DC movie is still going to be a smaller success compared to an "average" Marvel movie.

There's been a lot of discussion for years on why Marvel superheroes outperform dc superheroes. One of the main explanations is that DC's core superheroes are mostly based on greek gods etc Superman, Flash, wonder woman, they very often are morally right, just and strong both physically and morally. This makes a lot of them unrelatable. Marvel's core superheroes on the other hand generally tend to be flawed, have personal issues etc e.g. x men, spiderman, iron man etc all have moments of weakness, moral greyness etc. With the result being its easier to relate to spiderman, an x man, a tony stark than it is to a superman or wonder woman. It also explains why Batman is the most successful of the dc heroes as he's often described as the most marvel like hero in the core dc superheroes i.e. flawed, not morally just, bruce wayne is just as fascinating as batman etc.
 
I think so too because I'm a DC fan and have read far more of it than Marvel where I've only read any xmen really.

However, the material is never like the comics. Not even on the tv shows. They never do a comic to screen adaptation that feels authentic. Almost every time they are changing half of what a character looks like and what their background is likely to be from the comics. So when you keep making so many changes, you dont have much of the original material left.

But my point is that the marvel movies have a big fanbase and lots of success at this point. There will be a lot more hits than misses for them and they'll make loads of money and continue to be hyped up and talked about.

It would take a string of well received DC movies that make people think every new one is worth seeing, and it'll probably actually take better films than marvel movies to actually establish themselves like that because everything will be compared to Endgame, the peak of the marvel movies most would say. And that had a whole bunch of movies to build it up before so even if a movie was really good it would be hard to match that. Then theres the people who have decided they like Marvel so DC would have to wow them for them to take any notice.

So realistically right now a really good DC movie is still going to be a smaller success compared to an "average" Marvel movie.
Can't disagree tbh. It frustrates me to see DC be so tragic in most of their movies
 
There's been a lot of discussion for years on why Marvel superheroes outperform dc superheroes. One of the main explanations is that DC's core superheroes are mostly based on greek gods etc Superman, Flash, wonder woman, they very often are morally right, just and strong both physically and morally. This makes a lot of them unrelatable. Marvel's core superheroes on the other hand generally tend to be flawed, have personal issues etc e.g. x men, spiderman, iron man etc all have moments of weakness, moral greyness etc. With the result being its easier to relate to spiderman, an x man, a tony stark than it is to a superman or wonder woman. It also explains why Batman is the most successful of the dc heroes as he's often described as the most marvel like hero in the core dc superheroes i.e. flawed, not morally just, bruce wayne is just as fascinating as batman etc.
It's a bit of a myth tbh, DC main heroes have plenty of weaknesses/flaws.
 
There's been a lot of discussion for years on why Marvel superheroes outperform dc superheroes. One of the main explanations is that DC's core superheroes are mostly based on greek gods etc Superman, Flash, wonder woman, they very often are morally right, just and strong both physically and morally. This makes a lot of them unrelatable. Marvel's core superheroes on the other hand generally tend to be flawed, have personal issues etc e.g. x men, spiderman, iron man etc all have moments of weakness, moral greyness etc. With the result being its easier to relate to spiderman, an x man, a tony stark than it is to a superman or wonder woman. It also explains why Batman is the most successful of the dc heroes as he's often described as the most marvel like hero in the core dc superheroes i.e. flawed, not morally just, bruce wayne is just as fascinating as batman etc.


DC spoilers :

So Wonder Woman certainly doesnt fit in this category. When she was first made she was a lump of clay brought to life by Zeus to be his daughter. Her weaknesses included that if she is ever tied up by a man she cannot escape. Yes really.

Wonder Woman became a character lauded by women, but it certainly didnt start that way. Now along the way things have happened including Wonder Woman killing a villain and being morally unaccepted by the other heroes for doing it. She's also fought the Gods. So shes turned against her creators and who people pray to. So shes certainly not a clean cut moral brightspot

Superman does kind of fit some of it. The part that does is that he's an outsider, an alien who comes to represent the best of humanity. So the idea is that he's a really good human being, despite not being a human. So obviously morally he has to usually be right else he cant be that. However, contrary to what plenty of people believe Superman has weaknesses. Here's one of them, birthing an entirely new Justice League team led by John Constantine and Zatanna to take on mystical threats and firstly Enchantress here, who just beat the entire Justice League including Superman... Because... Superman's actual weakness is magic.

c60e4d228c77c4bb66c5057e356a0c2e.jpg


This is something you usually see from Mr. M...some other letters, in the comics. A magical 5th dimension imp that messes with superman's life for fun. But magic in general hurts him. Thats his weakness and its a big one. Another character who has fought the Justice League is Black Adam... once again magic based. He held his own.

Anyway, this is another reason why Superman needs the normal Justice League. Wonder Woman has a basis mystic ways and magical items, Aquaman some magical items, Shazam (Original Captain Marvel) has been on the team and when Wonder Woman doesnt know enough they generally consult with Zatanna or Dr. Fate who have also teamed with them.

Superman turning evil has also been done a bunch, although if its in the main continuity its an alternative version of Superman from another universe. The Injustice games were based on that story too. So there are evil and morally grey superman, just not the main ones in the main universe. And yes I say main ones because there have actually been 2 different Clark Kent Supermans.

Batman is someone who treads the line with morality. He usually stays on the right of it, but his main weakness other than not having meta powers in a world with meta powers like Superman etc is... His paranoia and distrust. This has led to several times where backup plans Batman has devised in case he ever needs to fight Superman and the rest of the Justice League fall into the hands of villains who use them to defeat the people they were meant for. On top of that there are other things like... Creating Robins. He's sending teenagers out at night in brightly coloured uniforms to be targets so he can attack from the shadows. He's using them as child soldiers. Even if he is in complete control and nobody got hurt its still wrong. And Robins have died before so he doesnt even do that right.

So thats the big 3 and only Superman has any truth to what you suggested. Moreover there are other characters like John Constantine or Black Adam who are indredibly flawed. Constantine will essentially do whatever it takes to win and have the good guys survive, so his friends and other innocent people might be sacrificed and tricked along the way to get it done. Black Adam generally only cares about his own country and doesnt care about morality outside of that. So you have loads of far more complex characters, we just havent seen too much of those ones in the movies because they chose other projects. But we have in Suicide Squad and Peacemaker, and Black Adam is next up
 
There's been a lot of discussion for years on why Marvel superheroes outperform dc superheroes. One of the main explanations is that DC's core superheroes are mostly based on greek gods etc Superman, Flash, wonder woman, they very often are morally right, just and strong both physically and morally. This makes a lot of them unrelatable. Marvel's core superheroes on the other hand generally tend to be flawed, have personal issues etc e.g. x men, spiderman, iron man etc all have moments of weakness, moral greyness etc. With the result being its easier to relate to spiderman, an x man, a tony stark than it is to a superman or wonder woman. It also explains why Batman is the most successful of the dc heroes as he's often described as the most marvel like hero in the core dc superheroes i.e. flawed, not morally just, bruce wayne is just as fascinating as batman etc.

The thing is, and I say this as a Batman fanatic for over 40 years, Superman is the bigger draw to casual fans. I remember reading before that the Superman S symbol is the third most recognised symbol in the world, behind the McDonald arches and Nike. More people recognise the Superman S than recognise the Christian cross.

I think Batman is more interesting from a story perspective, which is reflected in the fact Batman comics outsell Superman comics. However he (Batman) also thrashes every Marvel superhero (only Spiderman gets close) in brand recognition.

I'm not sure the poor performance of DC can be simply laid at the door of Marvel heroes being more relatable, as its never made a dent before.

The issue is awful choices by DC. They got blinded by Christopher Nolans genius on The Dark Knight trilogy, and decided to go the autuer route with directors who never had an ounce of Nolan's talent for storytelling. (Ayer and Snyder, Patty Jenkins is a quality director, ww84 being the exception).

I know Snyder is divisive, and it's clear he's a good person, but a film containing Batman and Superman together for the first time earned just over half an Avengers movie (before Marvel became the current juggernaut). As a creative force in Hollywood, that's the first line of your epitaph.

As for the Batgirl film, I'm not buying the reasons for it being cancelled. DC have released worst films like Justice League, so I don't think it can really be that bad.

As I said, I've been a Batman fan for over 40 years, I'm part of a lot of social media groups related to Batman, comics, and DC in general, and some of the people on those groups who seen the early test screenings seem to think it was okay is, not great but certainly not a disaster. The directors have just come off a successful tv show (Ms. Marvel), so I'm not buying the idea it was so terrible it should never be released.

I'm also convinced it would make its money back. Its a comic book film so there's an in built audience, plus it's Keaton back in the suit. No way it doesn't clear $100m (its budget) in a theatrical release. Morbius was a disaster, and it made €160m.
 
People already hated the living shit out of the CW's Batwoman series. Have to wonder how shit the reception was from the test screenings for them to just scrap it. Also why haven't they scrapped Flash yet?
 
People already hated the living shit out of the CW's Batwoman series. Have to wonder how shit the reception was from the test screenings for them to just scrap it. Also why haven't they scrapped Flash yet?

Neither The Flash or Batgirl got a trailer at SDCC, less than 6 months before they were to be released. That's not a good sign. Add in the Affleck reshoots for Aquaman, and it's becoming obvious now neither The Flash or Batgirl will be released.
 
The thing is, and I say this as a Batman fanatic for over 40 years, Superman is the bigger draw to casual fans. I remember reading before that the Superman S symbol is the third most recognised symbol in the world, behind the McDonald arches and Nike. More people recognise the Superman S than recognise the Christian cross.

I think Batman is more interesting from a story perspective, which is reflected in the fact Batman comics outsell Superman comics. However he (Batman) also thrashes every Marvel superhero (only Spiderman gets close) in brand recognition.

I'm not sure the poor performance of DC can be simply laid at the door of Marvel heroes being more relatable, as its never made a dent before.

The issue is awful choices by DC. They got blinded by Christopher Nolans genius on The Dark Knight trilogy, and decided to go the autuer route with directors who never had an ounce of Nolan's talent for storytelling. (Ayer and Snyder, Patty Jenkins is a quality director, ww84 being the exception).

I know Snyder is divisive, and it's clear he's a good person, but a film containing Batman and Superman together for the first time earned just over half an Avengers movie (before Marvel became the current juggernaut). As a creative force in Hollywood, that's the first line of your epitaph.

As for the Batgirl film, I'm not buying the reasons for it being cancelled. DC have released worst films like Justice League, so I don't think it can really be that bad.

As I said, I've been a Batman fan for over 40 years, I'm part of a lot of social media groups related to Batman, comics, and DC in general, and some of the people on those groups who seen the early test screenings seem to think it was okay is, not great but certainly not a disaster. The directors have just come off a successful tv show (Ms. Marvel), so I'm not buying the idea it was so terrible it should never be released.

I'm also convinced it would make its money back. Its a comic book film so there's an in built audience, plus it's Keaton back in the suit. No way it doesn't clear $100m (its budget) in a theatrical release. Morbius was a disaster, and it made €160m.
I find it fascinating that nobody got Superman right except Richard Donner. The guys behind Captain America got it right on how to create interesting stories of a morally straight superhero.
That should be the blueprint. That's a billion dollar movie if they can take that blueprint and apply it to a Superman movie.
I'm a Batman fan too, and I love Reeves take on The Batman, but I wish they could make a decent Superman movie
 
Apparently it’s all to do with WB Discovery and HBO Max merging, and there are fears HBO original content development will be gutted. We might get more news on that today.

Variety
Indiewire
 
Aren't they just binning everything at the moment? Loads of series, movies and other stuff getting canceled. Obviously not Apocalypse Now but probably not the shit pile you'd initially expect.
 
I find it fascinating that nobody got Superman right except Richard Donner. The guys behind Captain America got it right on how to create interesting stories of a morally straight superhero.
That should be the blueprint. That's a billion dollar movie if they can take that blueprint and apply it to a Superman movie.
I'm a Batman fan too, and I love Reeves take on The Batman, but I wish they could make a decent Superman movie

Not sure if folk will agree but the Avengers took the superman and Batman formula and used it for Cap and Iron man.