Justice League **Spoilers from post 980 onward**

Pretty certain this is a flop (unless China and other regions rescues it).

Box office mojo doesn't have their budget, but a quick Google gives a figure of $300m.

BMJ has it at $101,350,550, which is a huge flop domestically, and $185,000,000 foreign, so it's $286,350,550 total.

Realistically it'd need to make another $200m in China and other regions for it to be considered a financial success.

Dial Hard

Tusky wrote:

So much CGI as well - what were those blue tentacles towards the end?

Terraforming.

Tbh, I didn't think the movie was nearly as bad as the reviews on here were indicating. Obviously it wasn't Kramer vs Kramer, but it was still an enjoyable, leave-your-brain-at-the-door couple of hours with good chemistry between the characters and some good action sequences.

Dial Hard

Dial Hard wrote: »

Terraforming.

Tbh, I didn't think the movie was nearly as bad as the reviews on here were indicating. Obviously it wasn't Kramer vs Kramer, but it was still an enjoyable, leave-your-brain-at-the-door couple of hours with good chemistry between the characters and some good action sequences.

I didn't think that at all. There was good chemistry between WW, Batman, and Superman, but the others... not really. I mean, Cyborg's acting was more or less non-existent.

Haven't seen it, and I'm probably not going to go see it on the big screen if I haven't gone yet. Everything I read about this just dissuades me, even though I'd really like these movies to work.

Can someone who saw the movie answer this for me please, it's to do with the score...

Has Hans Zimmer's Superman theme been dropped? The piano one...

givyjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

Haven't seen it, and I'm probably not going to go see it on the big screen if I haven't gone yet. Everything I read about this just dissuades me, even though I'd really like these movies to work.

Can someone who saw the movie answer this for me please, it's to do with the score...

Has Hans Zimmer's Superman theme been dropped? The piano one...

Some Zimmer stuff is used but not that theme specifically. A version of John Williams's theme is used.

McDermotX

The music is instantly forgettable stuff - throwaway superhero guff.
Couple moments of Elfman's Batman creep in and a small smattering of Zimmer when Superman appears, but that's about it.

Penn

McDermotX wrote: »

The music is instantly forgettable stuff - throwaway superhero guff.
Couple moments of Elfman's Batman creep in and a small smattering of Zimmer when Superman appears, but that's about it.

In fairness though, I was glad not to be bombarded with Wonder Woman's theme kicking in every time she appeared on screen. I like the theme, but its overuse in BvS was more funny than anything else.

IncognitoMan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can someone who saw the movie answer this for me please, it's to do with the score...

Has Hans Zimmer's Superman theme been dropped? The piano one...

Mostly yes. There's hints of it just before

They bring back Superman from the dead.
But for Superman's main bit it's mainly a version of the original score.

Overall I was pretty disappointed with the use of the themes though. They are only really teased.

The Justice League theme is fairly forgettable.

HandsomeBob

I didn't notice any score tbh, nothing worth recalling anyway.

Chris_Heilong

HandsomeBob wrote: »

I didn't notice any score tbh, nothing worth recalling anyway.

I agree, I was worried hearing Elfman was attached but it was fine if not generic, the film its self is alright but feels very undercooked with many missing scenes.

Tylerdurex

Regarding Henry Cavills CGI'd mustache scenes
. I have to ask did many people notice any scene with him in it that wasn't CGI'd which begs the question what superman scenes were original Zak Synyder superman scenes ? My guess is that since this was supposed to be a 2 part movie that Henry Cavill didn't feature much in Synders original plan

Tylerdurex

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You just have to wonder what on Earth is going on with DC now. They just cannot get their Movie Universe going anywhere near as DC. Is it because of Disney's money and backing?

It's because they are too greedy and wanted the money now . They weren't willing to invest the time into developing the series properly. I personally think man of steel was very good I don't get the hate with it . Things started to go down hill with BVS and whilst I didn't hate Justice league every one that see it's a slapped together mess. I think Synder dropping out changed to whole dynamic of what was originally planned . There was supposed to be 2 movies another coming out 6 months later I think

Tylerdurex

Tylerdurex wrote: »

It's because they are too greedy and wanted the money now . They weren't willing to invest the time into developing the series properly. I personally think man of steel was very good I don't get the hate with it . Things started to go down hill with BVS and whilst I didn't hate Justice league every one that see it's a slapped together mess. I think Synder dropping out changed to whole dynamic of what was originally planned . There was supposed to be 2 movies another coming out 6 months later I think

My worry now with superman as my favourite character is there won't be another superman movie with Henry Cavill or any superman movie for 10 years at least

HandsomeBob

Tylerdurex wrote: »

Regarding Henry Cavills CGI'd mustache scenes
. I have to ask did many people notice any scene with him in it that wasn't CGI'd which begs the question what superman scenes were original Zak Synyder superman scenes ? My guess is that since this was supposed to be a 2 part movie that Henry Cavill didn't feature much in Synders original plan

There was 2 or 3 brief moments I think where it looked like Snyder's work and thus no CGI'ed tache;

the slo mo where his eye follows Barry, assisting Victor in forcibly removing the mother boxes and possibly part of the farm scene. The awful thing about the last one is I think it was half Snyder/half Whedon but with completely different purpose; Snyder had filmed a dream sequence, while Whedon used it as part of an actual scene.

May be wrong on them now but in the main I'd agree that much of his scenes seemed to be dominated by the CGI. I'd say Cavill did feature a lot in the story as Snyder had seen it but I think the issue may have been that he dwelt longer on Clark struggling with his resurrection than they wanted.

kerplun k

Tylerdurex wrote: »

Regarding Henry Cavills CGI'd mustache scenes
. I have to ask did many people notice any scene with him in it that wasn't CGI'd which begs the question what superman scenes were original Zak Synyder superman scenes ? My guess is that since this was supposed to be a 2 part movie that Henry Cavill didn't feature much in Synders original plan

Yeah. It stuck out like a sore thumb. I still can’t believe that a bunch of grown ups firstly came up with the idea to spend millions, to CGI out a mustache on Henry Cavills face, and then secondly, to green light the glorious mess that we see on screen. It was someones job to make these decisions and they got paid actual real money to come up with that.

Do you think the room laughed when the person came up with the idea, and then took a few moments to realise that he was serious and then they kinda just looked at each other nervously. Then when they seen the results he was like “okay that looks grand, sure you wouldn’t even notice” and the same people were just like looking at each other, saying “Are you going to tell him?”

FunLover18

kerplun k wrote:

Yeah. It stuck out like a sore thumb. I still can’t believe that a bunch of grown ups firstly came up with the idea to spend millions, to CGI out a mustache on Henry Cavills face, and then secondly, to green light the glorious mess that we see on screen. It was someones job to make these decisions and they got paid actual real money to come up with that.

They didn't really have a choice, Cavill is still shooting MI6 and Paramount wouldn't allow him to shave it, he admitted himself in an interview that wearing a fake wouldn't have been possible given the stunts he's doing. It was either CGI, no reshoots or Supes with a tash.

givyjoe

FunLover18 wrote: »

They didn't really have a choice, Cavill is still shooting MI6 and Paramount wouldn't allow him to shave it, he admitted himself in an interview that wearing a fake wouldn't have been possible given the stunts he's doing. It was either CGI, no reshoots or Supes with a tash.

Surely they could have just paid Paramount those CGI millions instead to work out some kind of deal.

They couldn't have known how badly it would turn out, surely..

Penn

Tylerdurex wrote: »

Regarding Henry Cavills CGI'd mustache scenes
. I have to ask did many people notice any scene with him in it that wasn't CGI'd which begs the question what superman scenes were original Zak Synyder superman scenes ? My guess is that since this was supposed to be a 2 part movie that Henry Cavill didn't feature much in Synders original plan

I'll spoiler since I don't know if spoilers are allowed yet

I think the issue is scenes like talking to Lois on the farm, and where he's fighting the other JLers at the memorial were always going to be part of the film, but that as part of the reshoots dialogue was changed/added to those scenes which meant his face can look fine in some shots (particularly where he doesn't talk) but then there'll be a reshot insert where he says something and it looks off.

Think I read that the scene at the farm was originally supposed to be a dream sequence for Lois (Snyder and his f*cking dream sequences...) but they reshot some of it to make it an actual scene.

After that, bar the fight scene at the end, the cellphone bit at the start and the race against Flash at the end were Whedon additions.

It pretty much felt like anywhere Superman spoke, he had a moustache.

Sad Professor

Paramount wasn't going to sacrifice the authenticity and continuity of their movie so Warners could do damage control on their latest superhero misfire. And delaying reshoots by several months until Cavill was finished shooting M:I6 would have pushed back JL's release and risked causing scheduling problems with the other actors, who might have grown moustaches that would have required CGI-ing out as well.

The film is a big CGI-fest anyway. What difference does it make if Cavill's upper lip is CGI as well?

pixelburp

A total, unfocused mess that once again betrayed studio tinkering and re-jigging (albeit enforced by personal tragedy this time) based on knee-jerk reactions and an absence of actual creative or structural direction. Sure, it was passingly entertaining in fits & starts, but only in the sense of a stopped clock being right twice a day. The fingerprints of Joss Whedon's reshoots were everywhere, and even by his own standards, the snark and banter felt like first drafts, few of them landing and often simply undercutting what passed for drama in this cavalcade of disjointed scenes masquerading as plot or narrative.

The players within didn't cover themselves in glory either: Ben Afflick turned in an utterly bored performance, clearly echoing his well-publicised desire to quit franchise. Cavill's distracting CGI face was ludicrous and that it has become the talking point of the film surely speaks volumes; only Gal Gadot walked away with any dignity, even if the success of the Wonder Woman film probably ensured even more chopping & editing during post-production.

And while the phrase 'superhero fatigue' is bandied about a lot these days, I think perhaps what I'm feeling myself is more akin to "apocalypse fatigue". Every finale, every goddamn 3rd act these days has to be some colossal, world-ending CGI vomit-beam trying to kill all the things - and Justice League couldn't even raise itself to present a threat with any semblance of substance or originality. A generic utterly interchangeable villain speechified over his CGI plan to CGI the world into a CGI nightmare.

Not even so bad it's entertaining as a so called 'hate watch', Justice League was simply a tedious 2 hours spent watching an aimless, charmless, uncreative franchise flail around in pathetic desperation trying to simultaneously copy Marvel yet make pains in avoiding comparisons.

Side note: When I watched Murder on the Orient Express, I lamented the overuse of recreating the Last Supper as an empty visual cliché. Justice League demonstrated another lazy cinematic stereotype to add: the narrated final montage; usually by a journalist or writer, speaking profound yet vacuous waffle that vaguely tracks with scenes we're watching. Excruciatingly pretentious.

Chris_Heilong

Honestly the film was not as bad as some are making out, it is just the bar has been raised so high by Marvel we expect big things and this film was just mediocre at best with glaring problems.

also the only 2 scenes were Superman's face looked weird to me were the opening shot and the race with Flash at the end.

Zack would have had the black suit Superman be a major part of the story but I guess WB wanted the happy go lucky characterture of 1979 Superman instead of anything complex so Weadon replaced the Superman Story beats with something more simple.

It's a bad sign when a CGI removed tache looks better than the villain.

kerplun k

pixelburp wrote: »

A total, unfocused mess that once again betrayed studio tinkering and re-jigging (albeit enforced by personal tragedy this time) based on knee-jerk reactions and an absence of actual creative or structural direction. Sure, it was passingly entertaining in fits & starts, but only in the sense of a stopped clock being right twice a day. The fingerprints of Joss Whedon's reshoots were everywhere, and even by his own standards, the snark and banter felt like first drafts, few of them landing and often simply undercutting what passed for drama in this cavalcade of disjointed scenes masquerading as plot or narrative.

The players within didn't cover themselves in glory either: Ben Afflick turned in an utterly bored performance, clearly echoing his well-publicised desire to quit franchise. Cavill's distracting CGI face was ludicrous and that it has become the talking point of the film surely speaks volumes; only Gal Gadot walked away with any dignity, even if the success of the Wonder Woman film probably ensured even more chopping & editing during post-production.

And while the phrase 'superhero fatigue' is bandied about a lot these days, I think perhaps what I'm feeling myself is more akin to "apocalypse fatigue". Every finale, every goddamn 3rd act these days has to be some colossal, world-ending CGI vomit-beam trying to kill all the things - and Justice League couldn't even raise itself to present a threat with any semblance of substance or originality. A generic utterly interchangeable villain speechified over his CGI plan to CGI the world into a CGI nightmare.

Not even so bad it's entertaining as a so called 'hate watch', Justice League was simply a tedious 2 hours spent watching an aimless, charmless, uncreative franchise flail around in pathetic desperation trying to simultaneously copy Marvel yet make pains in avoiding comparisons.

Side note: When I watched Murder on the Orient Express, I lamented the overuse of recreating the Last Supper as an empty visual cliché. Justice League demonstrated another lazy cinematic stereotype to add: the narrated final montage; usually by a journalist or writer, speaking profound yet vacuous waffle that vaguely tracks with scenes we're watching. Excruciatingly pretentious.

That’s an excellent post.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Honestly the film was not as bad as some are making out, it is just the bar has been raised so high by Marvel we expect big things and this film was just mediocre at best with glaring problems.

also the only 2 scenes were Superman's face looked weird to me were the opening shot and the race with Flash at the end.

Zack would have had the black suit Superman be a major part of the story but I guess WB wanted the happy go lucky characterture of 1979 Superman instead of anything complex so Weadon replaced the Superman Story beats with something more simple.

Nah, it's bad.
The portrayal of Batman is not what the character is at all. We're all used to it, you really think Batman would show up at the scene of bringing Superman back to life without something up his sleeve, incase he attacked him?

Calling Alfred by his name in front of a criminal

Story is all over the place, there is no way to get connected or invested into the characters

The editing is shoddy. There is nothing to give you a sense of the danger or power of Steppenwolf

Gal Gadot is the only positive

givyjoe

Isabelle Helpful Variable wrote: »

Nah, it's bad.
The portrayal of Batman is not what the character is at all. We're all used to it, you really think Batman would show up at the scene of bringing Superman back to life without something up his sleeve, incase he attacked him?

Calling Alfred by his name in front of a criminal

Story is all over the place, there is no way to get connected or invested into the characters

The editing is shoddy. There is nothing to give you a sense of the danger or power of Steppenwolf

Gal Gadot is the only positive

I keep seeing Gal Gadot's name as being a positive and can't get my head around it. She was ok in Wonder Woman, which I enjoyed mainly due to the other in it. I think she's absolutely dreadful.

pjohnson

Sad Professor wrote: »

Paramount wasn't going to sacrifice the authenticity and continuity of their movie so Warners could do damage control on their latest superhero misfire. And delaying reshoots by several months until Cavill was finished shooting M:I6 would have pushed back JL's release and risked causing scheduling problems with the other actors, who might have grown moustaches that would have required CGI-ing out as well.

The film is a big CGI-fest anyway. What difference does it make if Cavill's upper lip is CGI as well?

Unlikely Gal would have a tash :P

mrmorgan

it's not a bad film, but not a good one either. a few things annoyed me

how are they going to explain Clark ken coming back to life. why didn't bruce help out with Martha before she lost the house, obviously he didn't give a s**T about her? wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy the house from the bank than the bank itself?

MilesMorales1

I mean its really awful, like really bad. Only better than Suicide Squad since nothing could be as bad as that one, but christ. The action is awful, the CGI is bad, the tone shifts and is all over the place, despite having had 4 movies to build up their super team they still randomly introduce 3 new heroes, all of who are boring and terrible. Ben Affleck seemed to be waiting to leave the whole time. The reshoots and bits where they got Whedon to add more 'levity' are painfully obviously, and also the new flash is so unfunny and awkward, its painful to watch.

HandsomeBob

Sad Professor wrote: »

Paramount wasn't going to sacrifice the authenticity and continuity of their movie so Warners could do damage control on their latest superhero misfire. And delaying reshoots by several months until Cavill was finished shooting M:I6 would have pushed back JL's release and risked causing scheduling problems with the other actors, who might have grown moustaches that would have required CGI-ing out as well.

The film is a big CGI-fest anyway. What difference does it make if Cavill's upper lip is CGI as well?

Usually I don't jump on the bandwagon with these things and try to be reasonable but it was awful. It truly was.

I guess the real thing that annoyed me about it was that there didn't seem to be many scenes untainted by it, which just made realise one of the biggest casualties of these reshoots was Superman....again. I really felt awful for Cavill watching it as it was another case of his performance being severely hamstrung, caught between two different visions.

mrmorgan

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Usually I don't jump on the bandwagon with these things and try to be reasonable but it was awful. It truly was.

I guess the real thing that annoyed me about it was that there didn't seem to be many scenes untainted by it, which just made realize one of the biggest casualties of these reshoots was Superman....again. I really felt awful for Cavill watching it as it was another case of his performance being severely hamstrung, caught between two different visions.

his CGI face really annoyed me and

the way they brought back was no way exciting.

i also had no feelings towards the characters(except WW of course)

givyjoe

mrmorgan wrote: »

it's not a bad film, but not a good one either. a few things annoyed me

how are they going to explain Clark ken coming back to life. why didn't bruce help out with Martha before she lost the house, obviously he didn't give a s**T about her? wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy the house from the bank than the bank itself?

He probably didn't know the house was repossessed. Lois didn't even know.

It would be cheaper, but that would be suspicious that Bruce Wayne, was buying some pokey, crappy farm in Kansas. Less suspicious to just buy the bank. In keeping with his style, remember the restaurant scene in Batman Begins.

Kiith

I enjoyed it. It wasn't a good movie, but it kept me entertained through most of it. I couldn't figure out what was going on with Henry Cavill's face till i googled it this morning. Was really off putting at times.

brilou23

Will the film make a profit?

Mr Freeze

brilou23 wrote: »

Will the film make a profit?

Forbes are predicting a 100m loss.

Films that lose that much would end a franchise normally, I don't think Warner have that option though with a film in production and a few in pre-production.

IncognitoMan

Apparently it needs to make around 600m to break even. Hard to know what kind of legs it'll have in it's 2nd weekend though.

Probably not great.

brilou23

brilou23 wrote: »

Will the film make a profit?

It might do when it launches in China/other territories (if it hasn't already).

The production budget is $300m, which, I believe, doesn't account for the marketing budget (?), which looks like a cool $100m+, given how much I saw around the place for it.

Box office mojo has it at just over $307m right now (including domestic & foreign), so it's made $7m on the production budget, but nowhere near the marketing.

It'll probably need to make another $200m - $300m to be considered a proper success. It's doable, I mean: the most recent turgid Terminator movie only made $89,760,956 in the US and was on way to being a huge flop until those territories saved it.

This is considering that Thor: Ragnarok made $749,136,643 (foreign & domestic) on a $180m production budget.

pixelburp

Ideally, under performing at the box office will force WB/DC to take a step back and reconsider their reactionary, slapdash approach to the whole franchise so far. I think they're desperate for the success of Marvel, trying to recreate the formats without putting in the effort or understanding as to why that studio has been so successful. There was never any chance the narrative of Justice League would work with 2 of its roster without any prior solo outing.

Despite inexplicably STILL not having a director, The Flash is the best bet to restarting the continuity in a narratively believable fashion if the rumours about the adaption of the 'Flashpoint' story are true. Yet DC are talking about Joker or Deathstroke spin-offs instead of paring the whole sorry mess back to basics. Won't happen of course; it's easier to maintain damage control on a constant stream of stumbling crises, than to acknowledge that mistakes have been made and start again.

Mr Freeze

pixelburp wrote: »

Despite inexplicably STILL not having a director, The Flash is the best bet to restarting the continuity in a narratively believable fashion if the rumours about the adaption of the 'Flashpoint' story are true.

Since Flashpoint has a huge cast of characters and alternative versions of characters WB/DC have already introduced, I wouldn't be one bit surprised if they canned this idea or The Flash film entirely.

If they do make a Flash-focused movie, I really hope they bring in another actor, because I cannot stomach the thought of sitting through an entire movie focused on him.

MilesMorales1

Deleted User wrote: »

If they do make a Flash-focused movie, I really hope they bring in another actor, because I cannot stomach the thought of sitting through an entire movie focused on him.

I agree. He was irritating the entire film.

Is Flashpoint the same as the DC animated movie, Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox?

Mr Freeze

Deleted User wrote: »

Is Flashpoint the same as the DC animated movie, Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox?

Yip and based on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashpoint_(comics)

Mr Freeze

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Yip and based on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashpoint_(comics)

Thought so. The DC Animated movie was incredible and dark as hell. Cannot picture the current incarnation of the Flash fitting into that world at all. Plus do you think they'd go for the full R-Rated violence like Deadpool or nerf it like they did with Suicide Squad?

Mr Freeze

Deleted User wrote: »

Thought so. The DC Animated movie was incredible and dark as hell. Cannot picture the current incarnation of the Flash fitting into that world at all. Plus do you think they'd go for the full R-Rated violence like Deadpool or nerf it like they did with Suicide Squad?

I have no idea what they'd do.

Full disclosure, I am a massive DC fan of the comics and animated series and I'd rather never see any DC stuff on screen again than WB/DC carry on with the DCEU. I think Synders 'vision' is garbage.

TBH Man of Steel was actually pretty damn good for the first 1/3 - 2/3. Then it became less interesting when it fell into cliched smashy smashy. It's what I love about the way that Marvel has gone (excluding X-Men Apocalypse); their recent movies have stayed clear of this for the most part.

Mokuba

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH Man of Steel was actually pretty damn good for the first 1/3 - 2/3. Then it became less interesting when it fell into cliched smashy smashy. It's what I love about the way that Marvel has gone (excluding X-Men Apocalypse); their recent movies have stayed clear of this for the most part.

Disagree.

Man of Steel was dull and dreary throughout. Completely emotionless. Clunky dialogue. Uneven tone. And that's before the catastrophically bad second half.

4 utterly terrible films. 1 decent one. People are sick of it, and it's finally showing in the box office. Time to just walk away from the whole thing like many of the people involved want to.

Really hard to see how you can salvage any of the characters going forward. Except for..

They have had one decent movie in Wonder Woman. And considering the state of the rest of the stuff they put out - I'd be skeptical as to whether they will recapture that without the WW1 setting and the winning performance of Chris Pine (though he could yet be in it).

Everyone is trying to build a "cinematic universe" these days. Maybe just try making a decent movie instead?

IncognitoMan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

TBH Man of Steel was actually pretty damn good for the first 1/3 - 2/3. Then it became less interesting when it fell into cliched smashy smashy. It's what I love about the way that Marvel has gone (excluding X-Men Apocalypse); their recent movies have stayed clear of this for the most part.

I feel like once a month or so I have to say this but Xmen apocalypse or any xmen movie has nothing to do with Marvel. Fox owns the rights to them so all those films are developed under a different studio and not the marvel studio at Disney.

Same goes for Deadpool and Fantastic Four.

Used to be a similar story with Spiderman and Sony but they are obviously working together now.

CramCycle

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH Man of Steel was actually pretty damn good for the first 1/3 - 2/3. Then it became less interesting when it fell into cliched smashy smashy. It's what I love about the way that Marvel has gone (excluding X-Men Apocalypse); their recent movies have stayed clear of this for the most part.

I thought MoS was good until near the end as well, with the proper editor, you could save alot of it, it's the overly long battle that ruined it in the end;. Bats vs Superman was OK as well, except for the big bad and Luthor, again, a good editor could have done a huge amount for that film, although it was alot worse than MoS. Wonder Woman was just Marvel, it may as well have been Captain Americas first movie. I did not enjoy it as I want DC to be different to Marvel, I want far blurrier lines, far darker issues and questions. Instead we get them trying to MCU the sh1t out of stories that cannot be smoothed over in such a way and failing miserably.

CramCycle

CramCycle wrote: »

I thought MoS was good until near the end as well, with the proper editor, you could save alot of it, it's the overly long battle that ruined it in the end;. Bats vs Superman was OK as well, except for the big bad and Luthor, again, a good editor could have done a huge amount for that film, although it was alot worse than MoS. Wonder Woman was just Marvel, it may as well have been Captain Americas first movie. I did not enjoy it as I want DC to be different to Marvel, I want far blurrier lines, far darker issues and questions. Instead we get them trying to MCU the sh1t out of stories that cannot be smoothed over in such a way and failing miserably.

While I get what you're saying, WW was far superior to Captain America's first movie. They were both "period pieces", but that's where the comparison ends.

pjohnson

Flashpoint could be DCEU's answer to Days of Future Past and reset the universe.