Jump to content

The Banished Batgirl Mystery


Recommended Posts

While I am a fan of practical footwear, I'm not sure that laces are a good idea while superheroing. 

 

Especially since..

 

Laces have aglets. Does she not listen to The Question? 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2022 at 7:33 PM, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

They touch the Harley Quinn series, we riot. 

 

 

Interstingly the characterization of Batgirl in the HQ cartoon series is pretty much in line with a fair amount of the Barbara Gordon Batgirl stuff.   The main exception being the long continuity pre-New 52 stuff where Killing Joke and Oracle was her arc.  In that case she hadn't been Batgirl for years, with others taking up her cowl.   

 

This movie seems to be more along the lines of the CW Batwoman or Batman Beyond.   In that Bruce Wayne/Batman is retired, and they need a new Bat to replace him.  But in this case they are jumping back three Batman Movie continuties? (Or is it Four?)  

 

Why not just use the current Batman continuity?  The new Movie might be dark themed and grim, but I think it was a pretty strong offering.  And that way their money and efforts would go to promoting their current franchise.  Not one from back in the 80's.  

 

---

As an aside, the Birds of Prey offering was pretty weak.  With Huntress reduced to joke status.  So they have already messed up on the larger Batgirl side of the Bat Family stuff once already.  It seemed more a vehicle to get more Suicide Squad version of Harley screen time.  Which they could have done without the rest of that mess.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just reactivating this because of a new bit of information I wasn't aware of before.

But this involves some deep film nerd history, so strap in...

 

You may have heard of a bloke called Howard Hughes. Bit of a nutter. Decent engineer, especially when it came to planes (and bras). Quite a cunning businessman in his day.

And one of the jewels in his business crown was RKO Pictures - one of the original Big Five studios.

 

One of the reasons studios used to print money was that they didn't just make pictures. They owned the production rights, the distro networks, even the theatres (known as vertical integration.) Not only that, as such they could bully other chains into taking whole slates of flicks, good or bad (block booking) or fiddle with scheduling of other movies (clearance).

 

This was great for the studios, but not great for cinema owners. So Paramount got hit with a test anti-trust case: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc

The surrender agreement sheared the studios of all their cinemas, prodded them into breaking out their distro arms more cleanly, and forced them to revise a lot of how they do business. It also became a major bedrock of antitrust laws, and incidentally spurred the rise of indie filmmaking and foreign imports.

 

Oh, and it also killed RKO outright. Hughes saw what was coming, but jumped too early and took a bath on the cinemas. There were also a number of panic decisions, finishing up with flogging his prize asset to a bunch from Chicago who really, really didn't know what to do with a studio. So the only place you'll have seen an RKO Radio Tower since 1959's on a rerun (or The Rocky Horror Picture Show's big dance sequence).

 

So why is all this legal guff important now? 

Weeelllll... [sucks on glasses in a wise yet provocative manner]

 

If you happen to read to the end of that article, the DOJ in 2019 decided to look at any Supreme Court cases that didn't come with automatic end or renewal date.

For reasons best known to them, they picked this one. They disliked it, partly because it seemed outdated, but mainly because it didn't fit that admin's policy goals.

So the DOJ sent it to the Supreme Court in Nov 2019, and they gave it a "sunset" date. That expired... 

 

August 7th, 2022.

 

So, studios now have pretty much free rein to own what they want, sell to who they want, ignore who they want, etc.

Fair enough, the game has changed a lot since the 1950s, with streaming and a wealth of independent talent and whatnot.

 

With this new information on board, and looking back at what WB-D are up to business structure wise - with a lot of the major properties being hived off into holding companies and neat divisions, anything odd or contro getting burned without mercy, and turning tax tricks a-go-go (with multiple film casualties along the way) to clear existing debts...

 

To a very, very cynical eye, it might look like WB-D's being sliced like sashimi into neatly portioned assets ready for sale.

 

What do you guys think?

Edited by ThaOGDreamWeaver
  • Like 1

WAKE UP YA MISCREANTS AND... HEY, GET YOUR OWN DAMN SIGNATURE.

Look out for me being generally cool, stylish and funny (delete as applicable) on Excelsior.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of bat-familied out, for whatever reason, so I got no dog in this fight, I suppose.

 

As to the Flash, I always enjoyed watching Ezra Miller in the role, but he's done so many wacky (frankly, douche-baggy) things lately, that I'd honestly rather he just took some time off from acting to get himself some therapy.

 

That's not a cheap shot, by the way.  As someone who regularly struggles with extreme, clinical depression, you just can't have a normal life if you don't find a way to deal with that kind of stuff.  It's the way it is.  🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Cancrusher said:

I'd honestly rather he just took some time off from acting to get himself some therapy.

That appears to be happening, per Vanity Fair and others. They haven't specified what's going on, though I quite cynically suspect that will form part of the PR tour.

(If it does inspire other people to seek help, then at least some good has come out of that whole deal. I'm a hell of a lot happier and more together than I've ever been once I did the work, and - being maybe a little over honest - I probably wouldn't have been around here to say that if I hadn't. Things got... grim for a while back there.)

 

Anyhow. I guess WB hired some kind of dogged, Tommy Lee Jones ex-US Marshal type to run him down and corner him before the FBI did, then dragged him into therapy, and surrounded him with a steel ring of lawyers and PR. (EDIT: and thinking about it... I'd quite like to see that movie as much as The Flash.)

Edited by ThaOGDreamWeaver

WAKE UP YA MISCREANTS AND... HEY, GET YOUR OWN DAMN SIGNATURE.

Look out for me being generally cool, stylish and funny (delete as applicable) on Excelsior.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later

Gingerly reopening this jar of rookery whelps for some financial and directorial news.

 

WB-D have just apprised investors of a $4.2bn (OUCH) writedown charge to their current assets. Movies and streaming not being the high-margin business they used to be, this now leaves a $50bn debt load, a reduced $9bn profit target (so now 5.5 to 1 loan gearing - not good), and only $30bn in market cap (the value of the company based on share price). That's not healthy.

 

As the FT article says, bad news doesn't age well, so dumping all of it into one financial year and betting on a good turnaround is a good trick. But I'm not seeing them gel into a slick moneymaking machine they promised the markets any time soon.

 

Black Adam at least is a palpable hit ($147m to date), though not anything like the size of a pre-pandemic Marvel blockbuster - and only roughly on par with Love And Thunder ($144m). They'd better have a hell of a slate coming up...

 

...which they just might do, having just hired James Gunn as creative director of DC Studios, a new entity - WB-D will write off and shutter the previous DC Films unit and rebuild corporate structures from scratch. Reliable big-budget producer Peter Safran (Shazam, Aquaman, The Conjuring, The Suicide Squad) will handle the business end of things.

 

Unless there's some kind of major falling-out with Zaslav (entirely possible), Gunn will be exclusive to DC for the next four years, with only the Holiday Special and GOTG3 (now in post-prod) left on the Marvel slate.

 

It's a bold move, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for them.

Edited by ThaOGDreamWeaver

WAKE UP YA MISCREANTS AND... HEY, GET YOUR OWN DAMN SIGNATURE.

Look out for me being generally cool, stylish and funny (delete as applicable) on Excelsior.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

Gingerly reopening this jar of rookery whelps for some financial and directorial news.

 

WB-D have just apprised investors of a $4.2bn (OUCH) writedown charge to their current assets. Movies and streaming not being the high-margin business they used to be, this now leaves a $50bn debt load, a reduced $9bn profit target (so now 5.5 to 1 loan gearing - not good), and only $30bn in market cap (the value of the company based on share price). That's not healthy.

 

As the FT article says, bad news doesn't age well, so dumping all of it into one financial year and betting on a good turnaround is a good trick. But I'm not seeing them gel into a slick moneymaking machine they promised the markets any time soon.

 

Black Adam at least is a palpable hit ($147m to date), though not anything like the size of a pre-pandemic Marvel blockbuster - and only roughly on par with Love And Thunder ($144m). They'd better have a hell of a slate coming up...

 

...which they just might do, having just hired James Gunn as creative director of DC Studios, a new entity - WB-D will write off and shutter the previous DC Films unit and rebuild corporate structures from scratch. Reliable big-budget producer Peter Safran (Shazam, Aquaman, The Conjuring, The Suicide Squad) will handle the business end of things.

 

Unless there's some kind of major falling-out with Zaslav (entirely possible), Gunn will be exclusive to DC for the next four years, with only the Holiday Special and GOTG3 (now in post-prod) left on the Marvel slate.

 

It's a bold move, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for them.

 

Maybe I'm just too practical or lack "vision", but a stock-change like that would have me thinking low-budget/high-payoff films for the next couple of years rather than dice-rolling huge amounts on potentially iffy blockbusters in hopes of gi-normously huge payouts.

 

Gunn's selection is a surprise to me.  Considering all the ferocity surrounding his past events, his firing, and his re-hiring, I'd have thought they'd want to see how GotG3 was received before offering.  I guess this means that with the 4-year exclusivity for DC, all the fuss for bringing him back to GTOG leads to just a swan song, and others will helm it going forward, assuming the actors stick around. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...