Already Finished ‘Batgirl’ Scrapped by Warner Bros. Discovery, Won’t Hit HBO Max or Theaters

I guess they're deciding to just scrap stuff that won't fit into future plans rather than try to salvage anything.

Wonder if we are seeing the beginning of the end of superhero movies? In the 90’s I dreamed of a world with more superhero shows and movies than I could keep up with.

It didn’t live up to my expectations.

Regardless, always knew they would pass, just like other trends. But the timing is never easy to judge. 

Or maybe this is just the end of poorly executed projects that lose money, and maybe this will open the door to a few quality projects?

I’m an optimist until proven otherwise.

Shadar

Reminder that this is the studio that released Suicide Squad

This was that much worse than SUICIDE SQUAD

I almost wanna see it, it's probably a goldmine of cringe

With the film already completed and just in post, this is disappointing news. Probably doesn't bode well for the Black Canary, Blue Beatle and Static projects that were in the pipeline.

Honestly, when they spent the money to complete ZS Justice League - they might as well release it. Supposedly Batgirl was in good shape and possible additional money was going to be spent to boost it because of a possible theatrical run. Like it can't be finnish girls wailing bad. 


Feel bad for all those involved.

Saw this report last night too.

Good.  Get rid of all the crap and focus on what works going forward.

All these stupid films that they were planning are getting canned by the new management. Why? Because they are shit.

You wanna do a Supergirl film?  You get a BLONDE BLUE-EYED GORGEOUS actress to play KARA.  That's what you do.  Not some random nobody who checks boxes.

You wanna do a Batgirl film?  You get a WHITE girl to play her. Don't go race-changing for the sake of it.  Same with Batwoman.  Why did it HAVE to be a lesbian actress playing her???  Get the best person for the job.

It seems the new management at WB-Discovery is finally realising check-box shit don't fly.  You wanna make money, you stick to the source.  It's not rocket science.

Hopefully the new DC direction works out for them. 

Peace.

/K

P.S. They spent money on ZS Justice League because they needed some kind of draw to their new streaming service.

kikass2014 wrote:

All these stupid films that they were planning are getting canned...
You wanna do a Supergirl film?  You get a BLONDE BLUE-EYED GORGEOUS actress to play KARA.  That's what you do.  Not some random nobody who checks boxes.

I totally agree with what you have said. Helen Slater as Kara was a fresh face in the film industry. Not just a fresh face, but a stunningly beautiful face with her long blonde hair and amazing blue eyes to match her stunning looks! Helen Slater may have shown some naivety as an actress in her role, but it seemed to suit the role as a young alien girl finding herself with all her new powers on this strange new planet. The film may not have been the best, as we know, but Helen was perfect for the role.
Melissa had been around the block a few times, known for her actress work elsewhere, so she may not have been ideal for a debutante supergirl. Ah well, these things happen ...

Like the Adrienne Palicki Wonder Woman pilot this movie will be leaked one day and we can all watch this cringy mess.
Someday.

Like the Adrienne Palicki Wonder Woman pilot this movie will be leaked one day and we can all watch this cringy mess.
Someday.

100%.

On the topic of Palicki, the pilot had problems, but she was NOT one of them imo. I would have LOVED to see her as WW instead of Gadot.  And she rocked the bathing suit costume.



Peace.

/K

Yeah the three identities thing was probably what stood out to me the most.  And I agree, better writing would def have ironed out a lot of the problems.

Totally agree with you on Palicki.

She WANTED to play the character, and play her well.  Which is probably one of the most important things you could ask for in an actor.

Peace.

/K

kikass2014 wrote:

Like the Adrienne Palicki Wonder Woman pilot this movie will be leaked one day and we can all watch this cringy mess.
Someday.

100%.

On the topic of Palicki, the pilot had problems, but she was NOT one of them imo. I would have LOVED to see her as WW instead of Gadot.  And she rocked the bathing suit costume.

This image is hidden for guests.
Please log in or register to see it.

Peace.

/K


 

Palicki has the kind of tall, fit and action-oriented body that was believable as WW.

She's currently being completely wasted on The Orville, where her physical talents are totally underutilized and her more subtle emotional capability for acting is being revealed to be poor.  Given Seth runs the show, I suspect he doesn't want her to show him up. But if they unleashed her, she'd own the show.

I remember her from that one episode early in Smallville where she showed up naked at Clark's door, and soon after slammed her fists down on the front hood of an approaching car so hard the front was crushed to the road to stop such that the backend, which kept going, flew over her head to land upside in flames.

She was very convincing as a Kryptonian and at first I thought we were going to see Supergirl, but she was just a passing character, dismissed by the end of the episode. She might not have been perfect for Supergirl (but definitely better than Melissa), but once Laura V showed up as Kara I didn't care anymore about Palicki in the role. Laura was the perfect Kara in my book, but as WW, Palicki had all the right bits and pieces. She knows how to project both extreme power and femininity, and that's the basis of WW. 

Shadar

I've not watched The Orville tbh, so I can't really comment on her there.  But I will say that, to me, she has shown she could pull off more then just action.

Compare her role as Bobbi Morse (Mockingbird) on Agents of Shield, where she was a fan favorite, and a more action based role.  Then watch her in Women in Trouble (and the sequel Electra Luxx) where she plays Holly Rocket. She's quite funny and def has more to her then her physicality (which is impressive in itself imo).

But yeah, one of those things we'll never really know how it would have played out.

Peace.

/K

I thought Melissa was a great Supergirl myself early on until a combination of getting jaded with the role and CW writing kind of killed it for her.

Orville is finished. Seth has moved on to something else as has many of his cast. Season 3 was the last.

jimbob wrote:

I thought Melissa was a great Supergirl myself early on until a combination of getting jaded with the role and CW writing kind of killed it for her.

That's fair.. I also enjoyed her at the beginning. She wasn't my idea of the right actress, but there is plenty of room for different interpretations of Supergirl. But as you say, a mixture of getting jaded and CW writing didn't take advantage of any potential that Melissa could bring. 

But I'm sure there are people who identify her with the role now. We each have our own and often very different concept of how to do a live-action Supergirl. 

Shadar

jimbob wrote:

I thought Melissa was a great Supergirl myself early on until a combination of getting jaded with the role and CW writing kind of killed it for her.
 

I thought Melissa was great as a young, urban office worker trying to find her place in the world, but not in the role she was supposed to be playing. She would have been great as the lead in a remake of Ally McBeal, but not as Supergirl. It didn't help that the writing was awful. I still don't understand all the people who like the early seasons. I watched the whole first season and start of the second, before I finally gave up on the show ever becoming good.

YAGS wrote:

jimbob wrote:

I thought Melissa was a great Supergirl myself early on until a combination of getting jaded with the role and CW writing kind of killed it for her.

 

I thought Melissa was great as a young, urban office worker trying to find her place in the world, but not in the role she was supposed to be playing. She would have been great as the lead in a remake of Ally McBeal, but not as Supergirl. It didn't help that the writing was awful. I still don't understand all the people who like the early seasons. I watched the whole first season and start of the second, before I finally gave up on the show ever becoming good.

The first few episodes were good in that its always fun to see a new Kryptonian character in live action, discovering herself. But then Season 1 became the "villain of the week" and got old fast. 

The show wasn't designed for aficionados of Supergirl, but was instead for urban, Millennial office workers. I suppose it answered the question about how Supergirl handles office politics and friendships and how secret identities work (or don't), at least from that perspective. 

I'm more of a 60's, 70's, 80's Supergirl fan. I'd love to see a ridiculously cute, slender and fit, long-haired blonde with blue eyes who knew how to project power trying to recreate a Crisis on Infinite Earth's era Supergirl. I'm too old, too tired of poor writing and too rural to identify with shows aimed at Millennials.

Shadar

For me, season 3 was the best overall. The Reign storyline was really good imo, and Odette Annabel was brilliant as Samantha/Reign.

The first half of season 3 was the best series of episodes the show ever produced. This included the best episode they ever did in Midvale.

Season 1 suffered a bit in that, if I remember right, the original run was supposed to be 13 episodes.  They extended it midway through the run, so the second half did feel a little half-baked.

Season 2 gave us Katie McGrath, who was really good as Lena imo, and Tyler Hoechlin who was great as Superman and became a fan favorite. But season 2 also had the dumbest change in Alex's character, most likely due to the shift from CBS to the CW.  As such, the writing took a dip, but not nearly as bad as it would get in season 4 onwards.

I tuned out first couple episodes in season 4 when the woke went off the charts.

Peace.

/K

kikass2014 wrote:

Saw this report last night too.

Good.  Get rid of all the crap and focus on what works going forward.

All these stupid films that they were planning are getting canned by the new management. Why? Because they are shit.

You wanna do a Supergirl film?  You get a BLONDE BLUE-EYED GORGEOUS actress to play KARA.  That's what you do.  Not some random nobody who checks boxes.

You wanna do a Batgirl film?  You get a WHITE girl to play her. Don't go race-changing for the sake of it.  Same with Batwoman.  Why did it HAVE to be a lesbian actress playing her???  Get the best person for the job.

It seems the new management at WB-Discovery is finally realising check-box shit don't fly.  You wanna make money, you stick to the source.  It's not rocket science.

Hopefully the new DC direction works out for them. 

Peace.

/K

P.S. They spent money on ZS Justice League because they needed some kind of draw to their new streaming service.
 

I really don't care what race or hair color the character is, as long as the movie is good in the end. For example, Jim Gordon being black in The Batman is an absolute non-issue. The movie is good and the actor does a good job portraying the character.

And it's not like there aren't black haired Supergirls. Heck there is one in the current run of Teen Justice and then we also have Cir-El.

I really don't care what race or hair color the character is, as long as the movie is good in the end. For example, Jim Gordon being black in The Batman is an absolute non-issue. The movie is good and the actor does a good job portraying the character.

That's fine, from YOUR point of view.  However, it DOES matter what race or hair color the character is in regards to this because there is 70+ years of HISTORY behind it.

Jeffery Wright is a FANTASTIC actor.  Him being Jim Gordon isn't the issue.  It is if he is THE Jim Gordon.

Why?  Because for 70+ years, Jim Gordon has been a WHITE male.  Change this, and it has repurcussion when delving into the mythology of Batman.  For example his daughter.  You change HIS race, then Batgirl's race MUST change.  Thus a character who appeared 50+ years ago, now HAS to look different.  Where do you draw the line?

Do you rewrite the whole of Batman's history?  Why not make Joker black?  Or hispanic?  To you, it doesn't matter, but to the MAJORITY I would wager it makes a HUGE difference.

Is there black-haired Supergirl's in DCEU?  Sure.  But who is THE Supergirl?  I'm willing to bet that most will say Kara Zor-El.

And I'm not talking about just comic book fans (who will be the ones spending money on tickets, merch, etc.) I'm willing to bet that most "normies" will see Kara as THE SUPERGIRL based on Helen Slater's performance and pop culture depiction (and more recently Melissa Benoist's).

You see where this goes?

You wanna make, maybe, some money?  Go with the race change, sex change, whatever you wanna do.  You wanna make MEGA money?  Go with the source.  What the majority know and like (because it has endured for DECADES).

BO returns and viewing figures have shown this through and through imo.

And this isn't anything to do with racism or sexism, or whatever other -ism that may be thrown around.  It's simple facts.

Like I said at the beginning, if you have no problem with it, that's fine.  You are entitled to like what you like.  But to the vast majority of people, it DOES matter, and matter a lot.

Peace.

/K

I think you vastly overestimate the casual moviegoers knowledge about comic books. Most people have at absolute best a cursory knowledge of the characters, except for like the biggest ones like Superman, Batman and Spider-man.
You can ask a random person if they have a problem with Samuel L Jackson playing Nick Fury, a character who has been around since the 60s and they'll likely just say "No, Samuel L Jackson is awesome".

Only us nerds are invested in the comic book characters. And heck even we stop giving a damn when the movie is good. I remember a lot of us, including me, thinking Gal Gadot was a horrible pick for WW. And then the movie comes out, is actually really good and a lot of us change our tune.

This isn't even a new thing. Keaton got a lot of flack from comic readers when he got cast as Batman in the 89 movie. Same thing "he just isn't the right person for the part", then the movie comes out and everyone loves it.

We need to stop looking at the superficial. The only thing that matters is if the actor does a good job as the character.

ChaozCloud wrote:

I think you vastly overestimate the casual moviegoers knowledge about comic books. Most people have at absolute best a cursory knowledge of the characters, except for like the biggest ones like Superman, Batman and Spider-man.
You can ask a random person if they have a problem with Samuel L Jackson playing Nick Fury, a character who has been around since the 60s and they'll likely just say "No, Samuel L Jackson is awesome".

Only us nerds are invested in the comic book characters. And heck even we stop giving a damn when the movie is good. I remember a lot of us, including me, thinking Gal Gadot was a horrible pick for WW. And then the movie comes out, is actually really good and a lot of us change our tune.

This isn't even a new thing. Keaton got a lot of flack from comic readers when he got cast as Batman in the 89 movie. Same thing "he just isn't the right person for the part", then the movie comes out and everyone loves it.

We need to stop looking at the superficial. The only thing that matters is if the actor does a good job as the character.

I don't think that the average viewer's interpretation of characters or even the entire movie is relevant here. This site is mostly a collection of long-time comic fans for whom the appearance and behavior and roles of characters are VERY important. Who cares what the average viewer wants. We want something that has a faithful connection to the comics, or at least to the period of comics we hold in highest regards. 

With Supergirl, that means long blonde hair, slender but fit body and blue eyes. Not to mention heart-achingly beautiful. Perhaps because I came to appreciate her character in the 60's when I was in my mid-teens. 

As far as the Gal Gadot criticism, it was correct before and after the show. No Amazon should look like her, all skinny and weak. The fact that the movie was fairly good and popular doesn't change that. For that matter, Lynda Carter was just as bad or worse in my mind. An Amazon is a large, muscular woman with enhanced strength and skills. Some of the actors playing Amazons in the movie did fit the role. But Gal never did. 

But that's me. I couldn't watch Wonder Woman when it was on TV in the 70's because Lynda was all jiggly and feminine and wasn't remotely what I considered an Amazon. But others here will violently disagree with me. That's what being a fan or nerd or geek is all about. And it also has a lot to do with our ages when we come to love characters. If you were a teenager in the 70's, likely you loved Lynda despite her not looking like a comic-book Amazon. Probably more because she didn't. Big bouncy boobs are a character all of their own. But I was in my mid-20's when the show came out and had been around enough to know that I liked athletic, muscular woman with a strong personality. Amazons (in my mind) were that but taken to extremes. Haven't changed, with is why both Gal and Lynda didn't work for me. 

Excusing bad casting (re: the comics) just because lots of non-comic fans liked the movie or show is no excuse. I liked the first Wonder Woman movie once I looked past how Gal Gadot looked. Unfortunately, it has always been true that what fans want and what makes money are generally not the same. 

So be it...

Shadar

I think you vastly overestimate the casual moviegoers knowledge about comic books. Most people have at absolute best a cursory knowledge of the characters, except for like the biggest ones like Superman, Batman and Spider-man.

Batman. Exactly.  Even casual moviegoers know that Jim Gordon is a white character.

You can ask a random person if they have a problem with Samuel L Jackson playing Nick Fury, a character who has been around since the 60s and they'll likely just say "No, Samuel L Jackson is awesome".

Yes, that’s because Nick Fury wasn’t exactly a major character, even to comic book readers.  But he is a million miles away from say, the cultural awareness the majority of people have with Supergirl.

I guarantee you, more people know who Supergirl is even if they have never read a comic book.

Only us nerds are invested in the comic book characters. And heck even we stop giving a damn when the movie is good. I remember a lot of us, including me, thinking Gal Gadot was a horrible pick for WW. And then the movie comes out, is actually really good and a lot of us change our tune.

Gal Gadot was and is a horrible choice for Wonder Woman. The woman can’t act to save her life. She has zero emotional expression except crying.

This isn't even a new thing. Keaton got a lot of flack from comic readers when he got cast as Batman in the 89 movie. Same thing "he just isn't the right person for the part", then the movie comes out and everyone loves it.

This isn’t the same as if a character is race-changed or gender-swapped.  The uproar came from him being known for playing comedic roles.  No one imagined how he would fair in a more dramatic, fantasy role. Imagine the uproar if Eddie Murphy was cast as Batman instead.

We need to stop looking at the superficial. The only thing that matters is if the actor does a good job as the character.

It's NOT being superficial, or sexist, or racist or anything.  YOU seem to think its, but it really isn't.

Like I said, where do you draw the line? Get Idris Alba to play Joker?  Kumail Nanjiani as Riddler? Lupita Nyong'o as Wonder Woman? To you, it shouldn’t make a difference.  They are all excellent actors.

How much money do you think those films would make though?

I guess we are gonna just have to agree to disagree on this topic.

Peace.

/K