Batgirl (year yet unknown)

Doesn't Ruby Rose play her on the show? I've heard good things, but I don't know her that well as an actress outside her mute performance in John Wick II, her barely there bit in Pitch Perfect 3 and the giant shark movie The Meg.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

I like every DC movies. Will watch it.

That's Batwoman, who was introduced in the 1950's as Kate Kane, a trapeze artist with her niece Betty originally taking up the mantle of Batgirl. Then, Batgirl became the more popular Barbara Gordon.

The movie is still happening. Birds of Prey scripter Christina Hobson wrote the film and replacing Joss Whedon (who has faced major backlash from DC stars and others) are the team of Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah (Bad Boys for Life)

__________________
It's All About the Movies
http://www.worldfilmgeek.com

Actor-singer Leslie Grace has scored the role of Barbara Gordon aka Batgirl in the new film. (Deadline)

The film was pretty much done when Warner Bros. has decided to shelve it indefinitely!
thewrap.com/batgirl-movie-dead-warner-bros-discovery-has-no-plans-to-release-nearly-finished-90-million-film/

I really don't understand how not releasing a movie that has already cost $90 million will save the studio money.

Maybe the "it's almost finished!" stuff is actually an exaggeration? That and something like half the cost of a major release can be marketing and distribution, too. Dunno.

I don't know anything about the economics of distribution, but if it was developed for a streaming platform, surely there is less cost involved in that than a cinema release?

Perhaps it's all a ploy to get some free publicity and then, having saved money on marketing, they will release it to streaming after all.

That sounds plausible. Hard to imagine it'll never get any release.

Maybe there's a concern about cheapening their releases that way. There was some discussion to that effect during the pandemic, with releasing films right to Disney+. Could be a confluence of things like that, long-term concerns mixed with shorter-term ones.

Alternative theory:

Tax write off.

So it's basically like a 'The Producers' situation...?

Less charitable theory than the one I posted before: the movie is really, really bad, and while you'd think it'd still be worthwhile to release it, the whole "cinematic universe" brand thing calls that into question, and it really might not be worthwhile to release a bad movie to scrape together some of those costs when it'll make people less likely to see the next one.

Not releasing Batgirl seems like an odd decision, given that Warners spent nearly $100 million on it, and it's reportedly nearly finished. How bad could this film possibly be that they've decided for it to be trashed completely? I think Zazlav's idea to have a narrative arc to the films that is planned out 10 years in advance is a good idea. I don't really know why, since I am not a huge fan of the comic book movie genre, but Warner Bros DC hasn't really had anywhere near the same level of quality, or success as Marvel has had with films like the Avengers. The success that they have had is mostly Batman oriented, with "Joker" making $1 billion, and "The Batman" making something like $800 million, but those films are outside of the multi-verse concept, and the separate stand alone movies that they have made have mostly been not at the same level of quality as Marvel's. "Batman v. Superman" wasn't well done, and didn't meet expectations, and neither did "Justice League," for example. Marvel has had missteps as well. "Black Widow," which I did see, wasn't a particularly good film. I'm wondering, for those of you who do follow these films, why do you think DC really hasn't succeeded at the level that Marvel has? They seem to also have characters people like to build films around, but their attempt to duplicate Marvel's approach really hasn't worked, and I'm wondering why.