Grant Gustin as Barry Allen (The Flash) In Three Episodes, Possible Spin-Off

[j03superbat]

Barry Allen (The Flash) In Episodes #2.8, #2.9 & #2.20, Possible Spin-Off

That's all that can be assumed when they had to get Nolan's PERMISSION.

This is the part that I'm taking with a grain of salt. Of course if Nolan really needed to give his permission for Arrow to move forward with The Flash, that has wider implications, but the only source of that information (that I know about) is Stephen Amell. It could be true but I'm not ready to accept it as a fact until it's confirmed. I haven't even seen it be re-reported in any of the big news sites.

So you would be fine with a fourth film involving Robin John Blake as the new Batman? If you're saying Nolan could have gone with his ending to the TDK trilogy, then we would have had Blake's version as Batman. ...you would be fine with Blake as the new Batman as a continuation? And Blake's Batman being in the Justice League and NOT Bruce Wayne?

Yes. I admit it wouldn't be the most popular choice, but I don't think it would provoke as big a backlash because it was already teased at the end of TDKR. And I'm just saying I'd be okay with it; I still think a creative writer could think of a way of bringing Bruce Wayne back into the fold. Certainly, a threat that requires the greatest heroes on Earth to unite might coax a former Dark Knight out of retirement. But if Bale just flat out did not want to do it, and they didn't want to use a different actor for that version of Batman, yes, I'd personally be fine with JGL.

Please elaborate as I don't understand this example. You're bringing up just a 3D re-release.

Jaws 3D is a terrible sequel to the original Jaws, not a re-release. But it could apply to a lot of things. Do Alien3 and Resurrection take away from the greatness of the first two? Is Superman: The Movie no longer one of the best superhero films ever made because Superman III and IV? Is Batman any less watchable because of the existence of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin? Have any of the silly Bond films lowered the quality of the Sean Connery classics? No.

Sadly, it would have if Nolan had ever made TDKR anymore different than what it was.

Again, I never suggested that.

This is where you're confusing me now. A director isn't like a comic book writer. Any version they work on will come to an end and it doesn't need to continue with other directors. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man shouldn't have continued with Marc Webb, Joel Schumacher's Batman shouldn't have continued with Nolan, Donner's/Singer's Superman shouldn't have continued with Zack Snyder.

But none of those directors ended their universes. The possibility for sequels was always there. Batman Triumphant was heavily considered to follow up Batman & Robin. Sam Raimi was working on Spider-Man 4 when Sony changed their minds. Look at even Singer and Superman Returns, who flat out chose to ignore Superman III and IV and pick up after Superman II, going as far as aping the tone.

Or look at the directors who follow them. Brett Ratner picked up X-Men 3 exactly where Bryan Singer left off, to the point of mimicking the exact look of the first two films. Joel Schumacher did the exact opposite, changing the look and the main actor, but Batman Forever is still accepted as a continuation of Tim Burton's films.

And in none of these cases were the directors in any position to argue. They interpreted a hero, and then someone else got to do it after them. Again, why is Nolan different? Why is he allowed to hold WB's own intellectual property hostage?

So you're going to look past the characters they did screw, though?

The simple answer: yes.

Long answer, prior to the first season, the villains used on Arrow I knew the best were Deathstroke and Deadshot. I think they're doing interesting things with Deathstroke and I was glad to see Deadshot survived so they could refine him to resemble the comic book version a little more. I don't really know any of the other villains you claim they screwed that well, but I didn't think any of them would've been more interesting with their powers, especially the Royal Flush Gang, whom I've rarely found interesting.

Similarly, I thought the writing for Ra's Al Ghul was so strong that I didn't think he needed his immortality. I already cared about him. I won't deny that it's an essential part of his identity in the comics but Nolan showed his motivations could be interesting without it, making him a stronger character in the end... that is, the one I saw in Batman Begins.

[Anno_Domini]

This is the part that I'm taking with a grain of salt. Of course if Nolan really needed to give his permission for Arrow to move forward with The Flash, that has wider implications, but the only source of that information (that I know about) is Stephen Amell. It could be true but I'm not ready to accept it as a fact until it's confirmed. I haven't even seen it be re-reported in any of the big news sites.

And that's absolutely fine if you're taking that with a grain of salt, but I will say that I actually believe this more than just rumors circling about Nolan isn't going to take part in Warner Brothers' DC Cinematic Universe simply because we've actually heard someone say they had to ask Nolan for permission; we have only read stuff about Nolan having no part in it. This is where we differ.

Yes. I admit it wouldn't be the most popular choice, but I don't think it would provoke as big a backlash because it was already teased at the end of TDKR. And I'm just saying I'd be okay with it; I still think a creative writer could think of a way of bringing Bruce Wayne back into the fold. Certainly, a threat that requires the greatest heroes on Earth to unite might coax a former Dark Knight out of retirement. But if Bale just flat out did not want to do it, and they didn't want to use a different actor for that version of Batman, yes, I'd personally be fine with JGL.

I guess this is where we differ again, lol. By no means would I want to see the very first Justice League live-action film and it feature someone else who's Batman that's NOT Bruce Wayne. Yes, Nolan's version made it so that Bruce Wayne is only the creator of The Batman as his trilogy ends with someone else taking on the mantle, but when we see the Justice League form, it must be Bruce Wayne, not JGL's Robin John Blake.

Jaws 3D is a terrible sequel to the original Jaws, not a re-release. But it could apply to a lot of things. Do Alien3 and Resurrection take away from the greatness of the first two? Is Superman: The Movie no longer one of the best superhero films ever made because Superman III and IV? Is Batman any less watchable because of the existence of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin? Have any of the silly Bond films lowered the quality of the Sean Connery classics? No.

I've never heard of Jaws 3D in my life, lol. The word "3D" made me instantly think of a re-release in 3D, so to that, I am surprised there is actually a film called Jaws 3D, haha. But in any case, yes, Alien 3 and Resurrection do take away something away from the first two films because it's ruining the story of Ridley and yes, Superman III and Quest for Peace as well as Batman Forever and Batman & Robin do indeed take something away from Superman: The Movie, Superman II and Batman '89, Batman Returns. They are all meant to be in the same series and that's why the latter films lessen the entire broad story, much like how Spider-Man 3 takes something away from Spider-Man 1 + 2. All of those movies are meant to be in one single universe, one single storyline. As I've read in many other forums too, that's how people feel about The Dark Knight Rises with The Dark Knight and Batman Begins, so to answer your original question, of course a fourth film would take away something from the original TDK trilogy.

And how many people started to disown Star Wars as a whole thanks to the prequel? Bad films will give people a bad taste to an entire series.

Again, I never suggested that.

But being reasonable and looking at the picture of bringing in a DC Cinematic Universe around the time The Dark Knight Rises was being worked on, one would suspect that TDKR would indeed have been altered even if as minor as mentioning Superman as it would take away the main purpose of Nolan's Batman in that being a vigilante is something new. Christopher Nolan said once that the reason his Batman exists in a world where there are no other superheroes is because it means something to his version of Bruce Wayne that would actually become a superhero. If TDKR were to finally be a part of an expanded universe, then there would really be no reason for Bruce to even return as Batman if someone like Superman can just stop Bane by flicking him with one finger.

But none of those directors ended their universes. The possibility for sequels was always there. Batman Triumphant was heavily considered to follow up Batman & Robin. Sam Raimi was working on Spider-Man 4 when Sony changed their minds. Look at even Singer and Superman Returns, who flat out chose to ignore Superman III and IV and pick up after Superman II, going as far as aping the tone.

In a way, they did. Even after all those directors walked out or a sequel was never made, their universes still ended.

Or look at the directors who follow them. Brett Ratner picked up X-Men 3 exactly where Bryan Singer left off, to the point of mimicking the exact look of the first two films.

Brett Ratner didn't even bother to mimic the first two films. They felt so much different as much as the beginning didn't start with dialogue from Professor X and felt much more "action"-y. Ratner didn't even continue the story Bryan Singer would have used such as using Emma Frost.

And in none of these cases were the directors in any position to argue. They interpreted a hero, and then someone else got to do it after them. Again, why is Nolan different? Why is he allowed to hold WB's own intellectual property hostage?

The same way as Marc Webb went in to create his Spider-Man from the very beginning, what's so bad for another that can create Batman from the start just because Nolan chose to end his by making Batman some other person and not Bruce Wayne?

The simple answer: yes.

Long answer, prior to the first season, the villains used on Arrow I knew the best were Deathstroke and Deadshot. I think they're doing interesting things with Deathstroke and I was glad to see Deadshot survived so they could refine him to resemble the comic book version a little more. I don't really know any of the other villains you claim they screwed that well, but I didn't think any of them would've been more interesting with their powers, especially the Royal Flush Gang, whom I've rarely found interesting.

More power to you. As someone who was greatly aware of Drakon, the Royal Flush Gang, Firefly and Count Vertigo, I'm surprised the producers are letting loose and using superpowers while wasting the guys that could've been far more fantastical as the characters I mentioned. Yes, Firefly didn't have superpowers, but he was much more fantastical than a Two-Face hack off ex-firefighter.

Similarly, I thought the writing for Ra's Al Ghul was so strong that I didn't think he needed his immortality. I already cared about him. I won't deny that it's an essential part of his identity in the comics but Nolan showed his motivations could be interesting without it, making him a stronger character in the end... that is, the one I saw in Batman Begins.

By no means did I have a problem at all with Ra's al Ghul, but he could've been so much of a tougher villain to deal with when you bring in his immortality as well as the real Lazarus Pits.

[maasaloo]

@Anno_Domini- WB is using Barry Allen also for their rumoured Flash movie. As if they want to do a JL movie you need the original members first.

[j03superbat]

in any case, yes, Alien 3 and Resurrection do take away something away from the first two films because it's ruining the story of Ridley and yes, Superman III and Quest for Peace as well as Batman Forever and Batman & Robin do indeed take something away from Superman: The Movie, Superman II and Batman '89, Batman Returns. They are all meant to be in the same series and that's why the latter films lessen the entire broad story, much like how Spider-Man 3 takes something away from Spider-Man 1 + 2. All of those movies are meant to be in one single universe, one single storyline. As I've read in many other forums too, that's how people feel about The Dark Knight Rises with The Dark Knight and Batman Begins, so to answer your original question, of course a fourth film would take away something from the original TDK trilogy.

I fundamentally disagree. Yes, bad sequels can ruin the brand, the franchise, and future prospects, but they don't affect the original films IMO.

But being reasonable and looking at the picture of bringing in a DC Cinematic Universe around the time The Dark Knight Rises was being worked on, one would suspect that TDKR would indeed have been altered even if as minor as mentioning Superman as it would take away the main purpose of Nolan's Batman in that being a vigilante is something new. Christopher Nolan said once that the reason his Batman exists in a world where there are no other superheroes is because it means something to his version of Bruce Wayne that would actually become a superhero. If TDKR were to finally be a part of an expanded universe, then there would really be no reason for Bruce to even return as Batman if someone like Superman can just stop Bane by flicking him with one finger.

I thought the understanding was that because TDKR came out before MoS, it took place before it. I don't think it would have had to reference it in any way. As for Bruce returning, I guess I just think a creative writer could think of a way.

The same way as Marc Webb went in to create his Spider-Man from the very beginning, what's so bad for another that can create Batman from the start just because Nolan chose to end his by making Batman some other person and not Bruce Wayne?

I thought it was widely-thought that having to chore through the origin again in Amazing Spider-Man was the least-appealing aspect of that movie. Hence, I really think they should've just made Spider-Man 4. I think a different creative team could've injected life into the franchise without forcing us to sit through watching him become Spider-Man just 10 years after we saw it the last time.

By no means did I have a problem at all with Ra's al Ghul, but he could've been so much of a tougher villain to deal with when you bring in his immortality as well as the real Lazarus Pits.

If you were to use the Dark Knight continuity, he's dead. Move on and use a new villain, like Vandal Savage or someone else. I really have no desire to see him anytime soon even in this new continuity.

[Anno_Domini]

@Anno_Domini- WB is using Barry Allen also for their rumoured Flash movie. As if they want to do a JL movie you need the original members first.

I hope this isn't the case. And why would they HAVE to use the original members? Joss Whedon didn't with The Avengers.

I would really hope we see Wally West and John Stewart rather than Barry Allen and Hal Jordan, personally. For one, Green Lantern was a disappointing film that had Hal Jordon and the reboot should feature a different character and since the Hal Jordan/Barry Allen pairing is always thought of first, pair John Stewart with Wally West instead(and could feel very much like the animated series with that JL line-up). As well as the fact that a dominate-white cast for Justice League wouldn't be the best thing, imo.

I fundamentally disagree. Yes, bad sequels can ruin the brand, the franchise, and future prospects, but they don't affect the original films IMO.

To each their own. I'm also not saying it totally ruins the "better" films and the franchise as a whole, but is still puts a bad taste in the overall "universe" all the films are within. And this is coming from a guy who owns the entire Burton/Schumacher series; I think BF and B&R definitely brings down that universe down a notch, but I'll never say it just destroys my enjoyment of Burton's films(although I do think even Batman Returns is in a lesser quality than Batman '89 and sometimes I feel like I like Batman & Robin right after Batman '89 because at least those two films know their tone...BR feels like a Burton Batman film and BF is just staggering on what their tone should be from beginning to end, but that's another discussion for some other time, lol).

I thought the understanding was that because TDKR came out before MoS, it took place before it. I don't think it would have had to reference it in any way. As for Bruce returning, I guess I just think a creative writer could think of a way.

Can that really be thought of when TDKR takes place eight years after TDK? As well as it's firmly acknowledged that Man of Steel is taking place in 2013.

I thought it was widely-thought that having to chore through the origin again in Amazing Spider-Man was the least-appealing aspect of that movie. Hence, I really think they should've just made Spider-Man 4. I think a different creative team could've injected life into the franchise without forcing us to sit through watching him become Spider-Man just 10 years after we saw it the last time.

Why do you feel that films should just continue without another interpretation? I didn't care to seeing the origin yet again, and one that was, imo, undeniably a lesser origin than in the 2002 film, but still, I applaud the idea of a different vision from a different director.

If you were to use the Dark Knight continuity, he's dead. Move on and use a new villain, like Vandal Savage or someone else. I really have no desire to see him anytime soon even in this new continuity.

And we're not using the Dark Knight continuity, so I am pleased to know that Ra's al Ghul can be used once again.

[j03superbat]

Barry Allen (The Flash) In Episodes #2.8, #2.9 & #2.20, Possible Spin-Off

Can that really be thought of when TDKR takes place eight years after TDK? As well as it's firmly acknowledged that Man of Steel is taking place in 2013.

I'm not sure what the problem is. Ben Affleck is playing an older, grizzled Batman. TDKR came out 7 years after BB, and there wasn't supposed to be a lot of time passed in between BB and TDK. You'd have to fudge the timeline a bit - but ultimately, I just don't think it's a very big deal.

And now it's moot.

Why do you feel that films should just continue without another interpretation? I didn't care to seeing the origin yet again, and one that was, imo, undeniably a lesser origin than in the 2002 film, but still, I applaud the idea of a different vision from a different director.

Why does a different vision necessitate a new origin, or any sort of turning back the clock?

People are quick to hate on Batman Forever, but I quite like that movie, and I like that Joel Schumacher didn't attempt to emulate Tim Burton. Instead he kept what was working and added his own touch, while never contradicting story-wise what came before. I like that specific transition because I have been reading comic books for a huge part of my life and transitions are often handled similarly. When a new creative team comes in, they don't restart continuity. Maybe the artist draws the Batmobile and the suit completely different, and the new writer doesn't write the characters exactly the same way the last writer did, but you accept it.

Most people, I think, don't like Schumacher's take on Batman. But I think the way it was handled, without making any sort of big deal about it, was tasteful and respectful. Burton certainly didn't close the door on future movies and Schumacher (specifically in regards to Forever) just tried to make a good movie, and kept Michael Gough and Pat Hingle to ease the transition. I don't find Marc Webb's take on Spider-Man all that interesting or unique at all. I certainly don't demand it to be distinctive, but I don't think it warranted regurgitating the origin again so soon. His end goal seems to just be to reuse the Green Goblin, and I don't find that interesting.

So for me, it's not just about not redoing the origin. It's about specifically keeping continuity so the stories keep going forward, not backward. I think history, and specifically getting to see that history, makes these characters interesting, and any time they're quick to just reset and erase that history when it's not necessary, the characters become a blank slate to me and I lose interest.

[Anno_Domini]

I'm not sure what the problem is. Ben Affleck is playing an older, grizzled Batman. TDKR came out 7 years after BB, and there wasn't supposed to be a lot of time passed in between BB and TDK. You'd have to fudge the timeline a bit - but ultimately, I just don't think it's a very big deal.

And now it's moot.

It's a pretty big deal, though. Yes, the point is moot, but it would be ridiculous to "fudge up" the timeline when it's clearly firm that BB is at Bruce's 30th birthday, TDK is around a year or so after BB as acknowledged by Joker and TDKR is firmly set to begin eight years after TDK's end. As well as Ben Affleck is only what...a year older than Christian Bale?

Why does a different vision necessitate a new origin, or any sort of turning back the clock?

People are quick to hate on Batman Forever, but I quite like that movie, and I like that Joel Schumacher didn't attempt to emulate Tim Burton. Instead he kept what was working and added his own touch, while never contradicting story-wise what came before. I like that specific transition because I have been reading comic books for a huge part of my life and transitions are often handled similarly. When a new creative team comes in, they don't restart continuity. Maybe the artist draws the Batmobile and the suit completely different, and the new writer doesn't write the characters exactly the same way the last writer did, but you accept it.

Most people, I think, don't like Schumacher's take on Batman. But I think the way it was handled, without making any sort of big deal about it, was tasteful and respectful. Burton certainly didn't close the door on future movies and Schumacher (specifically in regards to Forever) just tried to make a good movie, and kept Michael Gough and Pat Hingle to ease the transition. I don't find Marc Webb's take on Spider-Man all that interesting or unique at all. I certainly don't demand it to be distinctive, but I don't think it warranted regurgitating the origin again so soon. His end goal seems to just be to reuse the Green Goblin, and I don't find that interesting.

So for me, it's not just about not redoing the origin. It's about specifically keeping continuity so the stories keep going forward, not backward. I think history, and specifically getting to see that history, makes these characters interesting, and any time they're quick to just reset and erase that history when it's not necessary, the characters become a blank slate to me and I lose interest.

Why doesn't a different version mean a "reboot"/a fresh start? You either die a hero and end that specific series or you live long enough to see your film series become a villain and weak sauce to the point that a reboot is what's needed(Casino Royale). And yes, I used that infamous TDK line to make my point, lol. In the age of movies, I think it's best for the genre like comic book movies to be rebooted for newer version, which is unlike other kinds of cinema genres.

And I also disagree on Batman Forever. It felt like a very disrespectful film because Schumacher was trying to balance so many different tones; at least in Batman & Robin, he made what he was set out to do, or at least set out to do what Warner Brothers wanted him to do.

[j03superbat]

Barry Allen (The Flash) In Episodes #2.8, #2.9 & #2.20, Possible Spin-Off

It's a pretty big deal, though. Yes, the point is moot, but it would be ridiculous to "fudge up" the timeline when it's clearly firm that BB is at Bruce's 30th birthday, TDK is around a year or so after BB as acknowledged by Joker and TDKR is firmly set to begin eight years after TDK's end. As well as Ben Affleck is only what...a year older than Christian Bale?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Yes, Affleck is the right age to play the same Batman that retired about 9 years after first donning the cowl. And by 2015, when Superman and Batman finally meet, it will have been ten years after he emerged, further lining up with the established timeline. I'd like that. But I don't think that's what's happening.

ETA: I guess you're trying to say TDKR takes place in 2014 whereas MoS firmly takes place in 2013, and there's no mention of him in TDKR. That's a valid point, but one that just doesn't bother me all that much.

Why doesn't a different version mean a "reboot"/a fresh start? You either die a hero and end that specific series or you live long enough to see your film series become a villain and weak sauce to the point that a reboot is what's needed(Casino Royale). And yes, I used that infamous TDK line to make my point, lol. In the age of movies, I think it's best for the genre like comic book movies to be rebooted for newer version, which is unlike other kinds of cinema genres.

Every ten years? I'm sorry, I think that's too frequent. I think it's unnecessary. I've explained why I think it's unnecessary. I've given examples of other universes/franchises that evolved. I've offered suggestions of how it could be done. I've said my piece.

And I also disagree on Batman Forever. It felt like a very disrespectful film because Schumacher was trying to balance so many different tones; at least in Batman & Robin, he made what he was set out to do, or at least set out to do what Warner Brothers wanted him to do.

Well, agree to disagree.

[Anno_Domini]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Yes, Affleck is the right age to play the same Batman that retired about 9 years after first donning the cowl. And by 2015, when Superman and Batman finally meet, it will have been ten years after he emerged, further lining up with the established timeline. I'd like that. But I don't think that's what's happening.

Ben Affleck is playing an older, grizzled Batman.

This is why I brought up Affleck's age....you're saying he'll be playing an older, grizzled Batman and that wouldn't fit even with Dark Knight's continuity when Bale's Batman wasn't very grizzled and for that matter, wasn't really THAT old when he's 39. But again, though, it won't take in Dark Knight's continuity, obviously, but just saying...Bale's Batman wasn't really that old or grizzled even when he returns after that eight year gap.

ETA: I guess you're trying to say TDKR takes place in 2014 whereas MoS firmly takes place in 2013, and there's no mention of him in TDKR. That's a valid point, but one that just doesn't bother me all that much.

Well yes, that's my main point.

Every ten years? I'm sorry, I think that's too frequent. I think it's unnecessary. I've explained why I think it's unnecessary. I've given examples of other universes/franchises that evolved. I've offered suggestions of how it could be done. I've said my piece.

Well we haven't seen a reboot every ten years since the difference between Batman vs Superman and TDKR is only 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man and Spider-Man 3 is 5, lol. But, yes, I get your point for sure, but that's why I'm fine with Batman vs Superman as opposed to The Amazing Spider-Man is because Affleck's Batman won't be getting a film of his own and obviously an origin right away. He's in a film with Superman, which is a smart route, imo.

[j03superbat]

you're saying he'll be playing an older, grizzled Batman and that wouldn't fit even with Dark Knight's continuity when Bale's Batman wasn't very grizzled and for that matter

That's not what I meant to say, but it looks like it finally got resolved.

[cloisornothing]

I think that Rob Kazinsky (True Blood, Pacific Rim) would make an incredible Barry Allen/Flash. He's almost Stephen's age, has a big sense of humor and he's a nerd!

[maasaloo]

I read somewhere the producers said that the filming of Barry Allen's first episode will begin at the end of September. If that's the case shouldn't we already be hearing casting news?

[KSiteTV]

Far as I know they've still got screen tests scheduled through Monday. So, no news yet...

[KSiteTV]

I think that Rob Kazinsky (True Blood, Pacific Rim) would make an incredible Barry Allen/Flash. He's almost Stephen's age, has a big sense of humor and he's a nerd!

That one REALLY wouldn't shock me as a casting choice...

[maasaloo]

Far as I know they've still got screen tests scheduled through Monday. So, no news yet...

OK thanks Craig. Have you heard anything any rumors on who's up for the role?