Comics and Movies

[Roadtrip635]

oh. Egerton would be a good good alternate. I could get behind that swap.

My choice would be Joel Edgerton. It is funny when I first read your mentioned of Egerton that I thought you got Edgerton's first name wrong.

He may be on the older side at this point, but could be a good choice. So, basically anyone with a similar last name could be a suitable replacement.....lol

 

[nobody]

Trust me. You are not the first CBZ member to say the movie was terrible. And I doubt you will be the last. I do not even try countering the opposing opinion anymore but I am curious of a personal comparison.

In your opinion, do you see Superman Returns as a better or worst movie than Man of Steel? Film fan sites' scoring systems are not precise and subjective but I like reviewing their gauged opinion. I will use Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes as gauges in my thoughts (bold numbers are links). For the audience:

Man of Steel ranks higher [ 7.6 & 75% ] than Superman Returns [ 7.0 & 61% ]​

The overall audience does not appreciate MoS as much as I do but it is looked upon favorably. On the other hand, paid critics thought:

Man of Steel ranked lower [ 55 & 56% ] than Superman Returns [ 72 & 74% ].​

My thoughts on how my opinion sways wildly with or from paid critics' have been posted on this site many times. Yet, my few conversations about MoS over the years has commonly demonstrated differing perspectives of it match or run beneath those of paid critics.

So, I am always curious and sometimes question other members if their opinion of Superman Returns also agrees or exceeds that of paid critics' consensus opinion, which I also disagree with. It is my way of kinda getting a clearer picture how much or little other folks judge these particular films as entertainment value comparatively.

Man of Steel was bad. Superman Returns was monumentally bad. It was bad on the levels of Quest for Peace bad.
Just because Man of Steel was better than Superman Returns doesn't make it even remotely decent.

My opinions are almost never affected by paid critics who often have no real close of the subject material. Sometimes I'll avoid going to see a movie in theaters if I read a review by a big fan of the subject though. That depends on the subject in question though. For example, nothing will ever stop me from going to see a Spider-man film even if I know it's likely going to suck (Like Amazing Spider-man 2 ).

I see what Snyder was trying to do with Man of Steel and think he botched it. He elected for too dark and gritty right off the bat. That works for Batman, not Superman. Imagine if they had built up the hope-factor and other positive qualities in a first movie and then had to deconstruct them in a SECOND movie with that pitched Metropolis battle that ended in him being forced to kill Zod? That would have been loads more powerful.

 

[DallasEast]

Man of Steel was bad. Superman Returns was monumentally bad. It was bad on the levels of Quest for Peace bad.
Just because Man of Steel was better than Superman Returns doesn't make it even remotely decent.

My opinions are almost never affected by paid critics who often have no real close of the subject material. Sometimes I'll avoid going to see a movie in theaters if I read a review by a big fan of the subject though. That depends on the subject in question though. For example, nothing will ever stop me from going to see a Spider-man film even if I know it's likely going to suck (Like Amazing Spider-man 2 ).

I see what Snyder was trying to do with Man of Steel and think he botched it. He elected for too dark and gritty right off the bat. That works for Batman, not Superman. Imagine if they had built up the hope-factor and other positive qualities in a first movie and then had to deconstruct them in a SECOND movie with that pitched Metropolis battle that ended in him being forced to kill Zod? That would have been loads more powerful.

I may have not been entirely clear since I was not attempting to change anyone's perspective on any movie. If someone says a film or television show is bad, terrible, etc., I believe them 100% despite disagreeing with the assessment if I think differently. In the past, I would often ask someone about their opinion about a movie or show to get better insight where they are coming from but rarely do so the older I get.

We do agree about paid critics' opinions though. I remember Roger Ebert, who I did respect very much before and afterwards, giving Raising Arizona a particular poor review. It is doubtful the majority of moviegoers, who saw the movie, agree with his assessment. I certainly didn't.

It would have been painful for me to have waited for a Man of Steel II. Unlike Batman v. Superman, my eyes were glued to every scene in MoS, much like I did watching Kill Bill Vol 1. It felt like I was having a mini-stroke during the trunk scene/Bill getting debriefed by O-Ren's right hand. It was a rare movie I did not go see with my wife at that time. If she had been with me, she might have stopped me from being shushed and stared at by other folks, realizing the movie would not resolve in one film, and my reaction was (quite loud unfortunately), "What the <expletive>???"

Thankfully for me, that would not have happened in MoS. My wife was with me.

 

[quickccc]

@quickccc , one more thing that has been pecking at my brain since my earlier comment. 37 years separated Lynda Carter hanging up her tiara and Gal Gadot dropping down out of nowhere to keep Doomsday from making a burnt smear out of Ben Affleck.

Regurgitating superheroes is a real issue. Lesser characters should see the light of day on both the big and small screens.

That said, Princess ‎Diana of Themyscira has been and may always be a Top 3 DC Comcs headliner character. I am sorry if movie studios deem female characters as risky box office ventures. I am sorry some audience members are not enthusiastic with female characters getting the spotlight for various reasons--some of which may be perfectly valid assumptions.

I don't care. My opinion? That Amazonian demigoddess deserves to be regurgitated as often as humanly possible. Perhaps until she has finally caught up with the number of regurgitated Supermen and Batmen seen since her ABC television show went off the air.

Gadot is the first reincarnation. Let more come! Although it would be appreciated if future actresses can act. And they all have the look of a legendary Amazon warrior.

/RIGHTEOUS RANT!

Sure I can understand the studios that when you’re on a roll with box office hits after hits.... Record setting domestic-global numbers .. viewership streaming ratings
going thru the roof ..that strongly indicate audiences are still really into the trend of superhero movies raving mania, then of course it keep it going, keep it coming,

But it doesn't always mean those hero movies and series will be quality aimed. Sometimes the vibe i get is these studios are just trying to make a quick buck
the fastest, biggest they can, simply because superhero mania is so wild fire high .. so why throw the dawg pound a nice big bone to see what big fish we'll pull in ?

Are the studios and directors sincerely doing their best to produce quality ?
. or are they just throwing out crappy sup-hero movies or series just for the sake of throwing them out because its' the crave rave trend and they can take financial advantage ? Morbius ... Venom .... Let there be Carnage ...Fantastic Four (3 tries and still 3 morbid flops) ...

Are Superman and Batman really That popular and in extreme demand that there's the huge need to keep ?
.. or is it the studios just dunno anything else to invest in ?

This why i was glad ot see a DC Suicide Squad .. or Doom Patrol ... or Aqua Man, ...alas Wonder Woman (first one was good , 2nd one was highly Awful !! )

We’ve had our fair share of Superman,... Smallville, Krypton, Lois & Clark ... Superman and Lois ... anf talk of yet another Superman incoming ..or re-boot.

Batman, after Nolan's series , now its' the Batman ..an now many Batgirl series or appearances in a series or movie has there been of her ?
... or are they thinking about returning Alicia Silverstone as Bat woman again ?

 

[VaqueroTD]

Voted Dave Bautista. Freaking nails it every time.

 

[quickccc]

My answer is conflicted. Before 2015, I would have said yes. I grew up seeing it visually captured on paper. And I did not like the imagined conceptualization seen in the Affleck movie, so I wanted someone else to take a shot at bringing it from page to screen.

Then the series came out. The creators got rid of the "Spider-Man! Spider-Man! He's got radioactive blood!" angle in favor of matching his trained heighten senses skill set to Stick's. That commitment helped the audience follow a commonly held real-life belief that people, who have lost their sight, discover another of their sense or senses has grown somewhat stronger.

The change made the show's main protagonist more realistic in a live action television adaptation in my opinion. Additionally, it made Matt and Stick's heighten senses' abilities equivalent, which, in turn, made Stick a more believable character as well.

It should be pointed out also that Stick's tv series abilities essentially match his comic book abilities. For me, that translation won me over more because Murdock's comic book mentor taught him how to HEIGHTEN his senses, like he did, without the aid of the comic book radioactive plot device. After all, Daredevil, like Batman, is only a man. He is more of a superhero than those with extraordinary abilities like flight, telepathy, etc., because he trained himself to be more than the average human to combat enemies and overcome obstacles.

I would say Disney should keep the status quo and not introduce a comic book version of visualized hyper radar senses. I say 'visualized' because the series does show the character with hyper radar sense but without any 'wavy' circles flashing across the screen.

From the impression i've always got from the origin of Murdock's keen senses (sound, touch, scent, hyper radar senses) the accidental radiation that robbed him of his sight, was the reason why his remaining senses were Heighten and Enhanced .. Stick who somehow also had enhanced senses, trained Murdock to better honed and use those remaining senses to it's fullest human capacity.

I see Daredevils heighten senses giving him more advantages than Batman who counts on his shell cased armor to protect him vs physical assaults
Whereas DD's hearing is so keen that it allows him to use it as a pulse detector, to hear heartbeats of opposing foes, which helps him anticipate when an opposing person is a second away from shooting at him, ...

would it be out of range to say DD could also detect a walking zombie, with his hearing and scent ?

 

[DallasEast]

From the impression i've always got from the origin of Murdock's keen senses (sound, touch, scent, hyper radar senses) the accidental radiation that robbed him of his sight, was the reason why his remaining senses were Heighten and Enhanced .. Stick who somehow also had enhanced senses, trained Murdock to better honed and use those remaining senses to it's fullest human capacity.

I see Daredevils heighten senses giving him more advantages than Batman who counts on his shell cased armor to protect him vs physical assaults
Whereas DD's hearing is so keen that it allows him to use it as a pulse detector, to hear heartbeats of opposing foes, which helps him anticipate when an opposing person is a second away from shooting at him, ...

would it be out of range to say DD could also detect a walking zombie, with his hearing and scent ?

I used the word 'heighten' in my earlier comment. A better word could have been 'honed' like you said. You are correct. In the comics, radiation heightened Murdoch's other senses. Matt suffered chemicals spilled into his eyes in the television series doing the same thing:



The point, that I poorly made, was what robbed Matt of his sight and gave him extraordinary senses, was de-emphasized in the show. When Stick first finds Matt (not posting that scene due to embedded language), the kid was enduring sensory overload. It told the audience his other senses had been heightened and enhanced but without any special visual effects. Stick's training was emphasized instead.

So, it is true chemicals instead of radiation amped up his other senses in the series adaptation, However, the focus was put on Stick's training to give him control over those super senses. In other words, how Stick sensed the world was adopted by Matt (with artificially enhanced senses) in the eyes of the audience. Stick was not seen to sense with wavy lines in the air. Matt was not seen to sense with wavy lines in the air. tada! It made Daredevil's abilities more relatable to the audience.

Yes, Daredevil could sense a silent zombie coming a mile away and use that to his advantage. However, Batman does not need that advantage to put it on in the ground after the zombie reaches his immediate vicinity. After all. He's Batman.

 

[quickccc]

Both sides have done it. A lot of the time it's by the original creator of the original character who jumped ship. They can't let their original go and so have to make a copy to write for.

Although it tends to look like one side more than the other.
Ironically i haven't read into any copyright infringement wars between the two separate companies.

 

[quickccc]

I emphatically disagree with you on Man of Steel. That movie was terrible and everything Superman was not.

Cavill can't be blamed for it though.

Guess it is a matter of what each individual audience member sees as quality per movie or television series.

To each his own, is how i see it.
Nobody made mentioned that the dark shady atmosphere worked for Gotham and Batman, but not for Superman and Metropolis ..

Whereas director Zack Snyder, dark image/atmosphere, that's actually seems to be his style, his rep. and Warner Bros thought to bring
that "new approach ..new look " to the Man of Steel.

It was something different, something new, .. however did it appeal ..or not appeal would apply ' to each his own'

 

[DallasEast]

Sure I can understand the studios that when you’re on a roll with box office hits after hits.... Record setting domestic-global numbers .. viewership streaming ratings
going thru the roof ..that strongly indicate audiences are still really into the trend of superhero movies raving mania, then of course it keep it going, keep it coming,

But it doesn't always mean those hero movies and series will be quality aimed. Sometimes the vibe i get is these studios are just trying to make a quick buck
the fastest, biggest they can, simply because superhero mania is so wild fire high .. so why throw the dawg pound a nice big bone to see what big fish we'll pull in ?

Are the studios and directors sincerely doing their best to produce quality ?
. or are they just throwing out crappy sup-hero movies or series just for the sake of throwing them out because its' the crave rave trend and they can take financial advantage ? Morbius ... Venom .... Let there be Carnage ...Fantastic Four (3 tries and still 3 morbid flops) ...

Are Superman and Batman really That popular and in extreme demand that there's the huge need to keep ?
.. or is it the studios just dunno anything else to invest in ?

This why i was glad ot see a DC Suicide Squad .. or Doom Patrol ... or Aqua Man, ...alas Wonder Woman (first one was good , 2nd one was highly Awful !! )

We’ve had our fair share of Superman,... Smallville, Krypton, Lois & Clark ... Superman and Lois ... anf talk of yet another Superman incoming ..or re-boot.

Batman, after Nolan's series , now its' the Batman ..an now many Batgirl series or appearances in a series or movie has there been of her ?
... or are they thinking about returning Alicia Silverstone as Bat woman again ?

The quality thing, whether it is high or low, is not restricted to this genre or films in general. Producers approach studios and pitch their ideas. If studios bite, the producers get funded. That is how all movies and television shows, great or trash, get in production. Some ventures, like Batgirl for instance, go unfinished, but those are the exception and not the norm.

Of course, production quality hinges upon a multitude of factors. Screenplay. Direction (and hopefully a dedicated director). Acting. Set design. Special effects. The lists goes on. Quality control is usually implemented in post production after a film or show has been completed. QC tries spotting technical nuances like identifying people or objects that are visible in a camera shot when they shouldn't be or audio not in sync with actor's lips, etc. That's when sound editing, etc., kicks in.

The actual quality you and other members of the audience seeks happens before or during production. Was the screenplay great, good, fair or poor? Did the director have a great vision or coordinated well throughout production or drew out the best in the actors? Did the actors BECOME their characters or did their jobs well enough to get paid or OVERacted their parts? Were sets poorly conceived before they were built? Who was contracted to create special effects? Did they have time enough to make the best finished product? Was enough money pumped into special effects to get superior output?

Getting quality movie and television end product is not a simple process. It is not automatic. It is hard work, dedication, dollars and, in many cases, time. Studios care about maximizing their fiscal year and budget control. They "trust" producers to produce optimal product based on proposals they sign off on. Sometimes what they sign off on is impossible to deliver as high end product. Sometimes their interference with production craps on what they are paying for.

There are many reasons why quality movies and shows are high, average or shoddy. It would be necessary to investigate what may or may not have happened throughout the production process to understand how quality was impacted. Yet, these are reasons why studios do cling to re-booting "safe" projects to get as much money back as possible.

I will end my longwindedness with a request. Please please please do not mention Alicia Silverstone again as Batgirl. I try extremely hard to forget ALL the movies that came out between Batman Returns and Batman Begins. Be merciful. My brain already hurts too much.

 

[DallasEast]

To each his own, is how i see it.
Nobody made mentioned that the dark shady atmosphere worked for Gotham and Batman, but not for Superman and Metropolis ..

Whereas director Zack Snyder, dark image/atmosphere, that's actually seems to be his style, his rep. and Warner Bros thought to bring
that "new approach ..new look " to the Man of Steel.

It was something different, something new, .. however did it appeal ..or not appeal would apply ' to each his own'

It is to each their own in my opinion. Superman: The Movie was great for its time. Not much thought was put into a guy, appearing out of nowhere, flying and catching news reporters falling from helicopters, and catching and lifting them like paper. Audiences were just awed like deer in headlights. I was one of them. It's the stuff of comic books from that era. Acceptance without question.

Well, comic books matured since then. Much more thought was put into storytelling and from real world perspectives. So for me (and just me) introducing a character, with otherworldly abilities, should be projected with apprehension on screen. What would be my first reaction if I spotted someone who looks like a man floating in mid-air? Acceptance? Awe? Nah. Me? I am saying to myself what the <fill in a word>. Some real life people would run from such a sight. Others might think they are having a religious experience. There are people who would shoot at something so fantastical that their brains cannot compute.

It's Superman. What type of menace should confront Superman? Superman is not Spider-Man. Spidey protects neighborhoods. He's not Batman. Bats protects cities. Superman? Supes protects The World. So what kind of villainy should Superman confront, stop and eliminate? Should the expectation be three people looking like they left a Goth party or an overly dramatic bald guy with a goofy henchman sidekick? What can be so menacing that it threatens all life on the planet? What is TRULY a job for SUPERMAN?????????

And how should people be seen in such a world faced with such a unique dilemma?

In a movie?

It was not Zack Snyder's best work in my opinion. That I give to him for his director's cut of Justice League but Man of Steel checks all my checkboxes for the Man of Tomorrow. The Man of Action. The Last Son of Krypton. I respect differing opinions of the movie. They do not sway mine though. I saw Superman on the screen in a way I would expect to see him in the world we actually live in. That is what I wanted from the film. It delivered for me. It was fun for me. Still is.

 

[Roadtrip635]

The quality thing, whether it is high or low, is not restricted to this genre or films in general. Producers approach studios and pitch their ideas. If studios bite, the producers get funded. That is how all movies and television shows, great or trash, get in production. Some ventures, like Batgirl for instance, go unfinished, but those are the exception and not the norm.

Of course, production quality hinges upon a multitude of factors. Screenplay. Direction (and hopefully a dedicated director). Acting. Set design. Special effects. The lists goes on. Quality control is usually implemented in post production after a film or show has been completed. QC tries spotting technical nuances like identifying people or objects that are visible in a camera shot when they shouldn't be or audio not in sync with actor's lips, etc. That's when sound editing, etc., kicks in.

The actual quality you and other members of the audience seeks happens before or during production. Was the screenplay great, good, fair or poor? Did the director have a great vision or coordinated well throughout production or drew out the best in the actors? Did the actors BECOME their characters or did their jobs well enough to get paid or OVERacted their parts? Were sets poorly conceived before they were built? Who was contracted to create special effects? Did they have time enough to make the best finished product? Was enough money pumped into special effects to get superior output?

Getting quality movie and television end product is not a simple process. It is not automatic. It is hard work, dedication, dollars and, in many cases, time. Studios care about maximizing their fiscal year and budget control. They "trust" producers to produce optimal product based on proposals they sign off on. Sometimes what they sign off on is impossible to deliver as high end product. Sometimes their interference with production craps on what they are paying for.

There are many reasons why quality movies and shows are high, average or shoddy. It would be necessary to investigate what may or may not have happened throughout the production process to understand how quality was impacted. Yet, these are reasons why studios do cling to re-booting "safe" projects to get as much money back as possible.

I will end my longwindedness with a request. Please please please do not mention Alicia Silverstone again as Batgirl. I try extremely hard to forget ALL the movies that came out between Batman Returns and Batman Begins. Be merciful. My brain already hurts too much.

There definitely some stinkers out there. Alicia as Batgirl is still better than some of those Captain America movies people don't want to admit ever happened......

 

[DallasEast]

There definitely some stinkers out there. Alicia as Batgirl is still better than some of those Captain America movies people don't want to admit ever happened......

The bottom one has the excuse of being a product of late 1970's television, whose programming of this nature focused more on titillation (i.e. Wonder Woman) or story corruption (i.e. The Incredible Hulk as a knockoff of The Fugitive] less dedication to visual effects (even for that decade) and accurate re-telling of characters' stories. The top one was just a bad B movie that never should have seen the light of day.

 

[Roadtrip635]

The bottom one has the excuse of being a product of late 1970's television, whose programming of this nature focused more on titillation (i.e. Wonder Woman) or story corruption (i.e. The Incredible Hulk as a knockoff of The Fugitive] less dedication to visual effects (even for that decade) and accurate re-telling of characters' stories. The top one was just a bad B movie that never should have seen the light of day.

Then there's always The Hoff, yes The Hoff is Nick Fury!

Who needs the X-Men when you can have "Generation X" featuring Emma Frost, Banshee and Jubilee

And only 1 in 5 doctors would recommend actually watching the original Dr. Strange movie.

So Alicia as Batgirl is looking good now.
This is the Golden Age for comic book fans as far as movies go, things could be so much worse.

 

[DallasEast]

Then there's always The Hoff, yes The Hoff is Nick Fury!

Who needs the X-Men when you can have "Generation X" featuring Emma Frost, Banshee and Jubilee

There is a video of a screaming goat floating around on YouTube. I am tempted to find it and reply with it for these two .

And only 1 in 5 doctors would recommend actually watching the original Dr. Strange movie.

To be honest, I kinda like that attempt when I was a kid. It was amateurish but still better than the Cap tv movie.

So Alicia as Batgirl is looking good now.

This is the Golden Age for comic book fans as far as movies go, things could be so much worse.

I feel blessed to be living in this era too. It is like a dream come true for this comic book nerd. Now I just need to be as physically fit as possible so I can live through all the MCU phases yet to come.

 

[DallasEast]

 

[DallasEast]

Warner Bros. Weighing Fate of ‘The Flash’ as Its Ezra Miller Problem Grows
By Kim Masters, Pamela McClintock | The Hollywood Reporter
August 11, 2022

The fate of Warner Bros.’ The Flash hangs in the balance as actor Ezra Miller continues to make headlines for their controversial behavior and various arrests. An outright shelving of the film is not off the table, though it would be a last resort.

Warners — and its new parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery — had hoped to avoid the line of fire, because its big-budget DC superhero tentpole isn’t scheduled to hit theaters until June 23, 2023. But the pressure is mounting by the day.

On Monday, the actor was charged with a felony burglary, and on Wednesday, Rolling Stone reported that Vermont’s child services department is attempting to locate a mother and three children who have allegedly been residing at Miller’s farm in the state.

A source with knowledge of the situation says the studio appears to be preparing for three possible scenarios.

Read more

 

[DasTex]

Warner Bros. Weighing Fate of ‘The Flash’ as Its Ezra Miller Problem Grows
By Kim Masters, Pamela McClintock | The Hollywood Reporter
August 11, 2022

The fate of Warner Bros.’ The Flash hangs in the balance as actor Ezra Miller continues to make headlines for their controversial behavior and various arrests. An outright shelving of the film is not off the table, though it would be a last resort.

Warners — and its new parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery — had hoped to avoid the line of fire, because its big-budget DC superhero tentpole isn’t scheduled to hit theaters until June 23, 2023. But the pressure is mounting by the day.

On Monday, the actor was charged with a felony burglary, and on Wednesday, Rolling Stone reported that Vermont’s child services department is attempting to locate a mother and three children who have allegedly been residing at Miller’s farm in the state.

A source with knowledge of the situation says the studio appears to be preparing for three possible scenarios.

Read more

Issues....this guy is the perfect definition of issues

 

[DallasEast]

Wow, Apparently Joaquin Phoenix And Lady Gaga’s Joker 2 Will Cost A Lot More Than The First Movie
By Adam Holmes | Cinema Blend
August 11, 2022

The Joker will soon be returning to the big screen, and I’m not talking about Jared Leto’s version of The Clown Prince of Crime from the DC Extended Universe. In 2019, Joaquin Phoenix starred as a more grounded take on Batman’s arch-nemesis named Arthur Fleck in Joker, which was met with positive critical reception and became the first R-rated movie to cross $1 billion. Joker 2, a.k.a Joker: Folie à Deux, is now making steady progress forward, and apparently the sequel that will see Phoenix performing opposite Lady Gaga will cost a lot more than its predecessor.

We already knew that Joaquin Phoenix is reportedly getting a bigger payday for Joker 2 to the tune of $20 million, a sharp increase from the $4.5 million he received for Joker. According to a new report from Variety, director and co-writer Todd Phillips, who announced the Joker: Folie à Deux in early June, is also getting paid $20 million, while Lady Gaga is getting $10 million. Those salaries combined with, as the outlet put it, “the cost of producing complicated musical sequences,” will result in Joker 2’s production budget adding up to roughly $150 million. However, it was also mentioned that these musical sequences will be more in the vein of Gaga’s 2018 movie A Star is Born rather than something like 2021’s In the Heights.

When it comes to superhero movies, $150 million is more on the cheap side of things. For comparison, fellow DC movie The Batman had a production budget somewhere in the $185-200 million range, while Thor: Love and Thunder, the latest Marvel movie, reportedly cost $250 million to put together. Still, considering that Joker’s production budget fell somewhere between $55-70 million, the fact that Joker 2 has reportedly obtained double or nearly triple that number is a big deal, particularly since a third of this amount has just been allocated to the two leading actors and the filmmaker.

Read more

 

[DallasEast]

Black Canary Standalone Movie Still in Development at HBO Max
By Matt Webb Mitovich | TVLine
August 9, 2022

Birds of Prey‘s bat-swinging girl is still planning to step up to the plate for HBO Max.

In the wake of Warner Bros. Discovery abruptly pulling the plug on the nearly complete, Leslie Grace-starring Batgirl movie, a spokesperson for Warner Bros. Pictures confirms for TVLine that the Black Canary standalone movie that was first announced a year ago remains in development at the streamer.

Spinning off Jurnee Smollett’s Dinah Lance character from the 2019 feature Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey (fka Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn), news of the project leaked late last August and was promptly confirmed by both Smollett and frequent collaborator Misha Green, who is penning the script.

“Guess the Canary is out of the cage! ” tweeted Smollett at the time. “So excited to finally embark on this adventure with my creative soul sis
@MishaGreen.”

Read more