Why DC’s ambitious reset might actually work
James Gunn and Peter Safran will be heroes in their own right if they can use characters like Superman and Swamp Thing to solve the crisis at DC
Aux Features dc comics
There are two important things to remember when it comes to DC, whether you’re talking about the company’s decades of success with creating comics or its years of mixed results with film and television. First, unlike principal competitor Marvel, DC has never shied away from hitting a big companywide reset button. And second, DC is no stranger to staring down a capital-C crisis.
With their ambitious announcement this week of plans for both an extensive reboot and a cohesive vision for the DC Universe, newly installed DC Studios co-chairs James Gunn and Peter Safran demonstrated their willingness to embark on a massive reset of the company’s film and TV operations. And with their urgency in making these moves—the news came just three months after Gunn and Safran took the reins at the troubled entertainment powerhouse—the new bosses signaled their eagerness to face head-on the crisis that has plagued DC movies and shows for years.
Of course, most of DC’s previous crises didn’t take place in the real world. In the 1960s, DC introduced the Justice League/Justice Society “Crisis On Multiple Earths,” hugely successful crossovers that introduced the concept of parallel realities to play home to its Golden Age heroes and other properties. And in the 1980s, DC rolled out the sweeping maxi-series “Crisis On Infinite Earths,” which re-wrote, re-defined, and reinvigorated 50 years of the company’s splintered continuities. In both instances, DC reaped significant creative, critical, and commercial rewards for its efforts.
This week’s moves by Gunn and Safran are designed to staunch the real-life crisis that has roiled DC’s film and TV output for more than a decade. The performance of the company’s signature characters, particularly on the big screen, has been wildly uneven and increasingly disconnected. And DC’s problems have multiplied as Marvel’s stable of heroes emerged to become the era’s reigning pop cultural phenomenon. Sure, some DC films and TV projects had their loyal enthusiasts, like the first Wonder Woman film or the second Suicide Squad entry. But overall there’s been a rudderless feeling, and a creative malaise, to the oft-disconnected DC Extended Universe. Even the considerable star power of Dwayne Johnson couldn’t make Black Adam a hit, prompting DC’s parent company Warner Bros to finally pick up the Bat Phone and call in Gunn and Safran.
So say goodbye to the cinematic DC Extended Universe—most of it, anyway—and while you’re at it, bid adieu to TV’s Arrowverse—once vibrant but slowly running out of creative gas. Gunn and Safran plan to profoundly alter the company’s landscape, aiming for a unified whole that will both offer audiences a sense of consistency, continuity, and storytelling integrity, as well as an opportunity to better contend with the cross-pollinated, must-see, epic-scope appeal of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Gods, monsters, and quality storytelling
Gunn and Safran’s newly revealed slate offers a giddy picture of the coming DC Universe, subtitled “Gods and Monsters,” one that leans into a few iconic pillars (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and Green Lantern) while mining DC’s incredibly deep bench of unique characters and high-concept creations (Booster Gold, Amanda Waller, and the Authority). It also offers revolutionary revisionist takes on B-listers (Supergirl) to help launch them into the pop consciousness. That audiences will be seeing legendary characters crossing into the worlds of the less well-known gives the whole endeavor a promise of freshness, unpredictable twists and potent new character combinations.
At the same time, Gunn and Safran are simultaneously offering fare for the superhero-fatigued by immediately dipping into the company’s ample toy box of horror and supernatural fare, from the familiar Swamp Thing to the downright obscure Creature Commandos. Given that horror is one of Hollywood’s most reliably bankable genres, the new DCU offers audiences big scares and charismatic monstrosities, and with the right kind of crossovers may hook fans on its superhero slate as well. Both are well-chosen: Swamp Thing has powerful comic book canon to draw on, from some of the medium’s finest writers and artists, while Creature Commandos offers creators all sorts of leeway for interpretation.
Perhaps most exciting is Gunn and Safran’s professed dedication to high-quality writing and storytelling as they unroll each new DCU project: as Gunn has demonstrated throughout his career as a screenwriter and filmmaker, he has a keen eye for both character and story, a scholar’s approach to comic book history and a distinctive ability to draw out and remix both essential and seemingly throwaway elements in new, delightful and often shocking ways, all while still staying true to the original incarnations (see the Guardians of the Galaxy films and Peacemaker).
Gunn also possesses a tremendous sense of humor, especially for what will play well on screen, which should provide a much-needed antidote to the relentlessly bleak and grim tone of the DCEU’s “Snyderverse” and even the Dark Knight films of Christopher Nolan, where that tone was perfectly appropriate. Gunn also has, thanks to his long-ago Troma bona fides, a well-developed sense of mayhem and carnage that may appease the fans who embraced the prior universe’s darker bent.
Edgier characters and hope for the future
Above all, though, Gunn promises to bring considerable heart to the new universe, something that’s integral to icons like Superman and Wonder Woman, but will benefit even the edgiest of DC characters. There is certainly room for bleakness, even unhappy endings, but grit and grittiness mean little without a genuine investment in the characters and their aspirations. There is a suggestion in the announced titles and the “Gods and Monsters” theme that even uber-powerful characters like Superman and Swamp Thing will grapple with vulnerabilities as they try to discover just how they fit in the world.
Meanwhile, The Authority, as sort of a fascistic take on the Justice League, may well offer a venue for fans of the darker, more violent aspects of the Snyderverse and an opportunity to contrast the team with the DCU’s presumably more compassionate heroes. And given the influence of the Tom King-penned series that it derives from, Supergirl: Woman Of Tomorrow will likely offer a slightly more “angry Kryptonian unleashed” spectacle than her Earthbound cousin. Nevertheless, the relatable human component of both properties will likely be essential to their success.
Of the announced TV series, Lanterns has a lot of promise and makes a lot of sense: the mythology of the Green Lantern Corps is one of DC’s richest and most complex, and audiences will benefit from a deeper and more extended entry point into that corner of the cosmos. More curious is the Amazon-centric Paradise Lost, if only because there’s no announced Wonder Woman project to tie into as of yet—though the show’s very existence suggests there will be soon.
One of the more intriguing questions, which Gunn and Safran haven’t explicitly addressed, is where certain remnants of the old DCEU might fit into the new landscape. Hollywood is, after all, a business built on box office success, and should any of the unreleased DC films in the pipeline—The Flash, and the second Shazam and Aquaman films—reap huge hauls, it’s hard to imagine Warner Brothers not wanting to fold some of those characters and actors into the new DCU at some point.
Similarly, even though Patty Jenkins’ third Wonder Woman film was scuttled, it would seem to be a huge waste of audience goodwill not to offer Gal Gadot an opportunity to continue on with the character, and Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn also seems deserving of a place in the reconfigured universe—without being relegated to non-canon projects under the Elseworlds label, which seem to defeat the purpose of a newly coherent continuity.
The best of both worlds
In the mid-’80s DC faced similar conundrums in its comic book universe, where characters like Superman and Wonder Woman received whole-cloth revamps, while Batman was given an “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach, with continuity tweaks slowly and subtly incorporated. Comic book readers accepted it, for the most part, and a similar approach with the films likely won’t discombobulate the broad audience, but it remains to be seen if having two concurrent Batman film series—Matt Reeves and Robert Pattinson’s The Batman, and the announced The Brave And The Bold film featuring a Grant Morrison-inspired take on Batman and his son/latest Robin, Damian—will prove challenging. While audiences may well be fine with dual Batfilms, the real challenge may be finding a new actor of talent and stature willing to don the cape and cowl while another one is already playing the role in an active sub-franchise.
Lastly, Gunn and Safran have wisely laid down a shrewd foundation for cross-continuity and sliding in the best surviving aspects of the prior cinematic universe with Waller, the planned series starring Amanda Waller. Bringing over Waller from the two extant Suicide Squad films and the Peacemaker series—as well as the actress who plays her, the extraordinarily gifted Viola Davis—gives the new DCU a character planted firmly at the center of the universe and a fixed point where any of the others may logically cross her path. Even better, Waller is one of the most complicated and morally gray DC characters of the last 40 years, and Davis can be counted on to strike flinty sparks with any actor she shares the screen with.
Booster Gold, too, with his somewhat mercenary goals of fame and fortune, will also provide a great cornerstone for crossover—Booster is always best in sharp relief to the more altruistic heroes like Superman and no-nonsense crusaders like Batman—and decades after his introduction he’s as ripe a vehicle for social commentary on fame, money, and influence as he ever was.
All in all, Gunn and Safran’s slate has more than enough potential to launch a near-fully formed universe right out of the gate. Now it’s a matter of execution, and audiences will find out if this latest and largest DC Crisis has a happy ending.
81 Comments
It doesn’t matter what characters they use, or what long term concepts they come up with. They need to make a good movie or two. Period.It’s been a while since they’ve done that.
Idk The Batman was pretty good?
Not good enough for a change in the hierarchy.MCU $ still > DC(E)U $
The Batman beat Thor: Love and Thunder at the box office. (It also beat Black Widow, Shang-Chi and Eternals but that doesn’t seem a level playing field). And out of the 31 MCU films, Aquaman beat all but 8 of them, Joker did better than 21 of them and even the financially disappointing Batman V Superman was bigger than big MCU films like Ragnarok and both GOTG films.Overall? MCU’s kicking their ass. But they get the occasional (financial – I don’t want to give BvS too much credit) victory here and there.
>>>>The Batman beat Thor: Love and Thunder at the box office. (It also beat Black Widow, Shang-Chi and Eternals but that doesn’t seem a level playing field).”You know you’re in trouble when you’re comparing yourself favorably to some of the worser movies,…or at least,….less than top tier movies, that Marvel has done in recent years.
Thor : Love and Thunder, (probably the second worst Thor movie after Thor 2), The Eternals and Shang -Chi?Wow.Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I thought it was…fine. I think the second Suicide Squad was the best movie they’ve done in a while.
The Suicide Squad, Shazam, and The Batman are all fantastic. Aquaman and Birds of Prey were pretty good.Problem is, they always seem to draw attention to their shittier movies. Black Adam got more promotion than most of these movies put together. We all saw how that turned out.
i’m gonna give push back that they didn’t spend money promoting the batman. they had a pizza even! black adam didn’t get a pizza.
‘Aquaman’ was roughly five movies, of which three were pretty good.
That’s still a better quality ratio than DC had overall.
IMO, Aquaman was gloriously stupid and entertaining, and everything else was… there. I’m overGunned and Waititied out, so Suicide Squad was fine, just not my thing. Batman was the broodiest ever, Shazam would have been ok without the Shazam family (everyone needing a team is really tiresome), and Birds of Prey is hard to even remember.Granted, subjective.
i read an interview where gunn says this is only ‘half’ of the first chapter, so i wonder what the real plan is.
If the goal is to compete with the MCU, then that ship has sailed. The time for that was 10+ years ago. Not even the MCU will ever reach the heights of the MCU again.If the goal is to make a good universe, well…I don’t know about that either. The whole thing looks haphazardly put together. They’re even releasing Superman: Legacy, a film that IS part of the new DCU, right before The Batman: Part II, a film that isn’t. Mixing up all of this stuff sounds like a recipe for confusion for the people who aren’t as plugged into all of this stuff.
I wonder if they actually have the mandate to start the full slate. I cannot imagine Zaslav isn’t planning to hedge his bets. I think I’m struggling to get excited in part because whatever they’re planning, I don’t trust WB to let it move fully forward.
I look forward to reading the AVClub’s article two years from now:“Why James Gunn’s Plan for DC was Never Going to Work.”
“Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice-skate uphill.”
You think this place will still up and running in 2 years?
That depends, is Peter Thiel available?
Up? No. Running? With freelancers and ChatGPT, why not?
It will be entirely generated by a chatbot AI, but sure.
It’s charitable we’re using the future tense.
The general roadmap sounds… fine. But the Brave and the Bold sounds like a weird choice to go with Damian Wayne. How many films are you gonna get out of a 12-year old Robin? Two? Then you either have to recast Robin or reboot it again. You make it Dick Grayson or Tim Drake, who’s a teenager, and you can ride that out for at least a decade, and move down the line of Robins.
on one hand – they can do whatever they want. damian can be the young one who becomes nightwing, and do dick or tim next, and just invert it like they did with gwen stacy/mary jane in the raimi spiders-man. on the other hand – that’s dumb and bad.
The weird part to me is they named the movie The Brave and the Bold and didn’t announce a second superhero that Batman was teaming up with. I mean that’s the whole point of the series…and no, Robin doesn’t count.
It seems simple enough. Age Damian down a few years to, like, 8. Then you get three or four movies out of him. Also, the plan to have the live-action features integrate with animated shows using the actors offers a way to get the most out of a young character.
Have you seen the young leading me coming up lately in Hollywood. They all look 14 years old and seem to stay that way for a decade. Tom Holland is 26 going on 12.
I was pretty floored by a photo of Nick Jonas and Priyanka Chopra recently. He look young.
Even though i know that in reality Tom is factually 26, I still get uncomfortable when folks say shes hot in films bc like 90% of the time he’s playing a teenager and LOOKS like a teen.
Maybe that’s the idea. In the original Batman and Son, Damian went back off to the league of assassins for a while after his dad’s first interaction with him. Maybe the idea will be that each brave and the bold movie features a different team up, and Damian will be aged up from the start, put on ice so he can be brought back with a new actor in a few years, or spun off into his own series.Having batman team-up movies as a way to launch lesser known characters isn’t the worst idea.
The idea of having a running Brave and the Bold with different hero team-ups sounds like a pretty good idea. Just release a Brave and the Bold every year. It’s basically what Marvel did, if not in name. But there hasn’t been an MCU movie since… Hulk?… where there wasn’t more than one superhero, despite them being supposed “solo” movies.
Yes, this would be great; Marvel had ‘Marvel two in one’ and ‘Marvel team up’. Hope this happens for DC (in movie form)!
Excluding post-credits scenes and side characters like Nick Fury and Everett Ross… Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger, Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, Guardians of the Galaxy, Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, Ant-Man and the Wasp, Spider-Man: Far From Home, Eternals…All focus on one superhero (or one pair/team for Ant-Man and GOTG) and their own character’s supporting cast (like Rhodey) in their story (I’d argue Shang-Chi as well, but your mileage on Wong being a superhero may vary). And then there’s stuff like Iron Man 2, Winter Soldier, Black Widow and Black Panther: Wakanda Forever that introduce new heroes rather than having a crossover with an established one.
He wants Batman to get raped? That’s how it happened in the comics.It turns out it was James Gunn that had Batman raped in a movie, not Zack Snyder.
Replacing hacks with talent is a big step in the right direction. Now, if only they had some decent IP.
See, you say that but both “hacks” and “talent” are hugely subjective.
I mean, sure, but in this particular case, we are approaching consensus.
I’m honestly not trying to be difficult but who have they even announced as incoming talent? I’ve only heard that James Mangold is in talks. And of course Gunn himself, but personally I didn’t think his Suicide Squad was *that* great and for my money the second Guardians was iffy. And I haven’t watched Peacemaker at all because good lord did I HATE that character and Cena’s performance. I do generally like Gunn but I also think he’s being hugely overhyped.I mean… if this is just shit-talking Snyder then I can laugh and nod but “hacks” is plural so I assume there are other targets.
Snyder gets most of the blame, but WB/DC put out a lot of trash in the last couple decades that he didn’t touch. You can argue, but to me Gunn and Mangold are huge improvements.My actual main point, however, was that most of the underlying intellectual property just isn’t very good. And it’s harder to imagine there ever being a unified vision at DC films that doesn’t just keep failing and rebooting itself, since that’s pretty much how the comics side has been since the 1980s. The MCU is a more cohesive cinematic universe, at least in part, because Marvel has ALWAYS been a more cohesive comics universe.
That’s fair. And I largely agree that Gunn and Mangold are *good*. I think Jenkins got a little shafted, Wan is decent if overrated, Whedon is a TV director at heart (ignoring his awfulness outside of that), etc. I more worry that people are overlooking the fact that it’s almost the same setup as the initial push, which is to have a singular artistic vision in charge. Feige made a point, however much I might disagree on the substance, that the MCU is varied in its artistic approach. No single creative vision drives the bus, so to speak. Whereas DC started with Nolan’s sensibility of grim realism. I do think that broadened but that’s where it began and Gunn is, at least right now, looking like more of the same. He just has a sensibility that the MCU’s success has made more desirable.Ultimately I mostly agree with you, I’m just feeling much more cautious about Gunn in charge. And I have enough anti-populist sentiment to dislike how hyped people are getting about his involvement. Gunn is not The Answer like some people seem to think.
Yeah, I think that was ultimately the point I was trying to make. They have improved the bench, but it doesn’t change the fact that the property itself may just not be well suited to this approach. I mean, while Marvel has always kept its characters in the real world, mostly in NYC where they can interact and their stories intertwine, DC decided a long time ago to create a fictional city (in more extreme cases, a whole different fucking Earth) to be the home of each major hero, which was a major investment in not unifying the universe.And the singular vision bit in film is very different. Kevin Feige unifies things on a brand/universe level while letting creators create, while DC keeps trying to have a creator be the unifier, which seems to be less wise.
I am on the same page with you.
Do we know yet if Constantine 2 is DCU or Elseworlds and what its production timeline is? Since Swamp Thing is happening, I’d love to get a little Justice League Dark into this mix.
Its production timeline is *never.* And I’m not saying that to be a hater, I love the character, love Keanu, and thought the 2005 movie was…fine. But it’s such a long-shot that I just don’t see it happening.*
*especially with a 60ish Keanu in the role
I love Keanu. I think he’s been unfairly maligned most of his career and is more dedicated and passionate a performer than most.Having said that, he’s not Constantine. It’s obvious why he was cast back then, but a Constantine movie is never going to be a blockbuster so why not, at least the main character, remain faithful to the source material?
As of now, he’s hasn’t even been mentioned. It would be great though if they can surprise us all and introduce him in Swamp Thing just like the comics.
Wild to see Gunn turn up in a Holliston episode; everybody on this show is like a trenches-level horror guy and here’s this one guest star who’s getting a call from Disney like, next week.
While audiences may well be fine with dual Batfilms, the real challenge may be finding a new actor of talent and stature willing to don the cape and cowl while another one is already playing the role in an active sub-franchise.Yea…I’m sure it will be tough to convince an actor to take a high-paying role in a blockbuster.
Just imagine the guy’s agent. “Oh noooooo my client would HATE to play one of the most popular badass action heroes in all of fiction. He would just be SO UPSET if he got to dress up as the character he’s idolized since he was in first grade. You’re gonna have to pay him a loooooooooooot of money to get him to agree to that. What’s Pattinson getting? Yeah, more than that.”
I mean, WB is making a name for itself for screwing over talent. It’s not going to be everyone’s go to, to be honest, especially if you’re going to get compared to Pattinson.
Why DC’s ambitious reset might actually workAnswer: Because everything up until this point hasn’t.
Graf 4: You want “stanch,” meaning “to stop the bleeding,” not “staunch,” meaning “substantial” or “robust.”
There’s some cool potential in here, but I think the biggest hill DC needs to climb is building trust with the audience. I’m not a Snyder fan by any means, but I’ve watched pretty much all the DC properties to date. My takeaway from the past decade is that they don’t see things through and resets are constant. I’m also not jazzed by 3 different Batmans doing 3 different Batman things. WB Discovery’s new policy of selling pieces off HBO Max for parts and tax write offs isn’t super exciting.I’m not going to get excited or invested until it actually happens.It sucks for DC to be in this place because Marvel’s biggest asset when Iron Man came out was that there really weren’t huge expectations. Gunn and Safran don’t have that benefit.
It’s doomed to fail. Why? Because there’s no Kite Man movie
Preach!
There will be, but they are introducing him in the Calendar Man movie before giving him his own solo film.
HELL yea
I am not excited for waller if Gunn is writing it. Waller was probably the only character from his suicide squad movie who got worse than in the first movie. Like Waller in the first movie was quite good in the second she sort of loses her edge
It’s interesting how shows like The Boys, with more obscure comic book origins, have started to make DC’s shows and movies less relevant.
How so? The Boys isn’t about superheroes.
Unreported here is the suggestion by Gunn that actors will play their characters not just on film, but also in video games, animation, etc. Which is an interesting idea and also not one based in any understanding of just how different voice acting is from screen acting.But broadly the key here is to tell creator-driven stories. A good strategy to differentiate themselves from the MCU and hopefully one that results in some fun projects.
I’ll believe it when it isn’t just Gunn writing everything himself.
It’s not wholly foreign to the MCU – What If featured mostly the same voices with a few exceptions (at least one of which – Tom Holland – was a rights issue). I am interested to see how they sell those contracts. The MCU has moved away from the massive overall deals because talent didn’t want to be locked in to 10 movies. Is DC (and by extension the very spending averse WB Discovery) really ready to offer contracts that will sustain that?
If Gunn can keep the Peacemaker vibe going, the DC Universe will be a huge success. Don’t forget he humor.“Ugh, so dark and edgy. You must be from the DC Universe.” – Deadpool
I don’t love the grimdark Snyder stuff. But if the strategy is to ape the MCU’s use of “humor” then Feige’s self-serving bullshit about audience burnout is going to look even more false. And with Gunn in charge, I expect forced wacky to be the DC house style now.(I like Gunn, don’t get me wrong. But I tire of his style easily.)
Snyder’s movies aren’t really that dark. Like BvS is about as dark as Empire Strikes Back. Also, there was humor in Snyder’s films, it wasn’t a quip-a-thon. But it was there. Mostly he liked finding comedy in a visual gag or a character reaction or sassy Alfred.
I’ve snarked on a lot of AV Club articles lately so I just want to say. I enjoyed this one. Kudos.
I wonder if WB have the guts to make something like ‘Swamp Thing’ truly a horror movie, and not a horror-adjacent superhero movie. That would be one way to truly differentiate it from what Marvel is doing, but I suspect they’d rather keep things appealing to as many quadrants as possible, which to me says nothing too grisly.
And to my mind the best Swamp Thing stories have traces of existentialism in them, which doesn’t exactly scream mass appeal. Then again, Skinamarink has made a bunch of money so maybe the general public is more open to weirder ideas than we think.
Skinamarink should be watched, laughed at, and then put away. If it impacts the film industry, we all lose. Sorry, my dislike of that film leads me to inane comments.
Oh, I feel you! But the impact is already out there. It made huge money given its budget and huge hype given its genre. It’s experimental film, which should not be a wide release success. And yet…
Perhaps most exciting is Gunn and Safran’s professed dedication to
high-quality writing and storytelling as they unroll each new DCU
project: as Gunn has demonstrated throughout his career as a
screenwriter and filmmaker, he has a keen eye for both character and
story, a scholar’s approach to comic book history and a distinctive
ability to draw out and remix both essential and seemingly throwaway
elements in new, delightful and often shocking ways, all while still
staying true to the original incarnations (see the Guardians of the Galaxy films and Peacemaker).
Did James Gunn’s publicist write this?
Can they get a tax rebate if they cancel all of these now? Or do they have to wait to do that once someone of colour has been hired to star?
You can’t hang a whole show/movie off him but I really hope Vigilante sticks around. He was the MVP of Peacemaker in my opinion.
They burned a lot of fan goodwill by dumping Henry Cavill as Superman. Especially now that we know they are inexplicably backing the poison pill Ezra Miller for some reason over Cavill.
100% yes. The near universal outrage and disbelief expressed by fans across the superhero movie spectrum was palpable. Dumping a charismatic and well liked marquee action star as an iconic character has not been well received. Henry Cavill was never the problem in those Snyder movies. He was a bright spot and fans love him. Not to mention how the timing of everything worked out. It was like Cavill was asked to come back and then dumped in public like a month or two later? That kind of thing upsets people on principle.
They burned a lot of talent goodwill by cancelling Batgirl.There’s no established actor out there who wants to risk those headlines.
You see, Gunn wants a Superman movie with a 25-year-old Superman who is trying to reconcile his Kryptonian heritage with being raised as a human… And that sounds a lot like Man of Steel. So, yeah. I’m gonna guess Gunn has some sort of personal dislike of Cavill.
So you know how DCEU fans and Snyder fans in particular are mostly pretty right-wing and overlap heavily with the people who tried to get Gunn cancelled? We need to agree to start calling Gunn’s reboot of DC movies “the great reset,” it’ll piss ‘em off so bad.
If there is any show the public is dying for, it has to be the one about the Suicide Squad’s boss.
Huge fan of the DC Animated Universe, they were doing the Marvel crossover shtick very well while the DCEU movies flailed about. They also have a great series of Damian Wayne centric stories. It will be interesting to see how Gunn and co make this reboot work.
I actually think this meshes well with Dc’s style of retcon events in it’s comic books. Its a shame that flashpoint has both been delayed as long as it has and that its leading actor is, to put it lightly, dripping in controversy.