Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Well, my favorite Batman movie is still Batman: The Movie, so yeah, believability really isn't a factor for me.


And I also really liked Ben Affleck in BVS. I still haven't seen JL.

Was he really that unpopular - eg we ahve all disagreed about various things on this thread but can;t recall anyone sating BA was a bad Batman or indeed Bruce - that was my main problem with CBs Batman, whilst Bruce Wayne may live in Batmans attic - you need to put some effort into the Bruce Wayne Character as well!

The Nolan movies started with Ra's Al Gul

No idea if he is in the comics but in the film that character is not good with his league of useless ninjas and insane plans

Nolanverse Batman is not a super detective. Nolanverse Batman is a ninja with gadgets and its about 1000x better and more believable than super plot armor detective batman.

Please, stop now - that's hilarious.

Ben Affleck was an awful Batman.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Ben Affleck was an awful Batman.

What didn't you like?

I’m one of those who thinks that batman movies should feature the detective aspect of the character. Done right it could turn the movie into a properly tense thriller. Action scenes are great and all but the whole movie can’t be one long fight scene.

To avoid turning the thread into a “How the DC movies should be made” one I’ll just say again that they missed a chance with Caville. You had a great actor for the role but you went and mucked it up...3 times over.

Mr Morden wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
I liked Cavil as Supes, well, I liked the potential he had to be a good supes. You saw glimpses of it, if he is gone thats a shame.

Batfleck has been my favorite live action Batman and Bruce Wayne, he played both persona's very well. While he will never top the best Batman, Conroy, he is good and I would like to see more of him in the role as older Bats.

Ideally if Alfeck is leaving they would set up Dick Greyson and just have him take over as Bats for the DCEU.

Other than the ongoing mutiple car crash that was Eisenberg's terrible portayal of Luther I am not sure any of the DC roles have been miscast.

Batman -Angry Batman worked for me - he kills people, meh - so did Keaton's
Wonder Woman - great choice, pretty much flawless
Superman - no issues with him at all, seemed to work well and the ladies I know were certainly impressed.
Flash - again all good.
Aquaman - all good
Cyborg - all good

Deadshot - Its Will Smith - if you like him (I do) all good.
Harley - Margot was ace.

Even Carla Delevegne was fine at first - if they had given her something to do after the first half other than undulate......

its not the cast thats the problem.

The Flash was okay? Really? If they had named him ANYTHING other than Barry Allen, I'd agree with you. As it stands, I don't know WHAT the hell that was, but it wasn't The Flash.

 Just Tony wrote:

Mr Morden wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
I liked Cavil as Supes, well, I liked the potential he had to be a good supes. You saw glimpses of it, if he is gone thats a shame.

Batfleck has been my favorite live action Batman and Bruce Wayne, he played both persona's very well. While he will never top the best Batman, Conroy, he is good and I would like to see more of him in the role as older Bats.

Ideally if Alfeck is leaving they would set up Dick Greyson and just have him take over as Bats for the DCEU.

Other than the ongoing mutiple car crash that was Eisenberg's terrible portayal of Luther I am not sure any of the DC roles have been miscast.

Batman -Angry Batman worked for me - he kills people, meh - so did Keaton's
Wonder Woman - great choice, pretty much flawless
Superman - no issues with him at all, seemed to work well and the ladies I know were certainly impressed.
Flash - again all good.
Aquaman - all good
Cyborg - all good

Deadshot - Its Will Smith - if you like him (I do) all good.
Harley - Margot was ace.

Even Carla Delevegne was fine at first - if they had given her something to do after the first half other than undulate......

its not the cast thats the problem.

The Flash was okay? Really? If they had named him ANYTHING other than Barry Allen, I'd agree with you. As it stands, I don't know WHAT the hell that was, but it wasn't The Flash.

I don't know anything about him other than what I have seen on Big Bang and the JL film - from that perspective he seemed fine. Same with Aquaman

 Lance845 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

There is a time jump but I think it is brought up in the movies that he goes "missing" pretty early on in his adulthood. Which is basically when he becomes the super ninja. Nolanverse Batman is not a super detective. Nolanverse Batman is a ninja with gadgets and its about 1000x better and more believable than super plot armor detective batman.

You can like whatever you like and feel however you want to feel.

But this is dead wrong.

Batman being a detective is his whole thing. Maybe you are unaware, but Batmans comic since his first appearance wasn't called "Batman". It was called "Detective Comics". Batman not being a detective is like Superman not being a Kryptonian.

Batman, like most superheroes, has been different things at different times. The Nolan/Bale Batman was definitely a militarized rage tank, and a response to 9/11 and what came after. However, there are moments in Batman Begins and TDK that he's shown doing a little bit of detective work.

And regardless of the character's origin, there are many, many issues of Batman comics (maybe even most) that are more heroic or fantastical and don't read like a detective procedural.

If you like the detective angle, you'll probably like Matt Reeves' upcoming movie. Apparently there'll be more focus on his detective work.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I’m one of those who thinks that batman movies should feature the detective aspect of the character. Done right it could turn the movie into a properly tense thriller. Action scenes are great and all but the whole movie can’t be one long fight scene.

I agree, and I loved Afleck as Batman. Just watched Batman v Superman again last night and whatever gripes you can have about the film he is not one of them. None of the other Batmans would have fit the part. I guess you either like Afleck or you don't. And the fight scenes are the best I have seen Batman in. Even Batman vs Bane was pretty disappointing. It was cool, but not Epic. Batman against KG Beast's gang was epic.

I loved Afleck as Bruce Wayne too. Much preferred his take and look versus Batman Rises version. I loved he was jaded. I loved that he killed from time to time too. And I thought the beginning of him running to his office was one of the best scenes in the movie.

I loved the newer batmobile too, and the batwing, but to be honest, I know they are part of Batman, but I just don't see Bruce being able to hide his identity for long driving around in those. To me, Batman is somewhat insane and a criminal. I feel most of his best villains are in the shadows where he belongs too. Batman is best fighting in the sewers, crack houses, and in the warehouse district and so on, versus some of the over the top stuff we have seen him do. Some of it, when you think about it, just looks ridiculous. I prefer Batman in the dark, spooking the criminals he is trying to stop, but forced to go into the shadows where they lurk, and not responding to the bat signal. And I prefer detective over gadget man too.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Ben Affleck was an awful Batman.

What didn't you like?

Ben Affleck. His acting was pretty awful. I watched Justice League recently and it really felt like he was phoning it in/didn't give a gak. He just had no energy as Batman or Bruce. Which is crazy because Bruce is supposed to be a big playboy party guy and when he was Bruce, he just seemed like an old fart who needed his rocking chair.

Also the batsuit looks like they fished it out of a trashcan and he got blind al to sow it up for him. But that probably isn't Afflecks fault.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Ben Affleck was an awful Batman.

What didn't you like?

Ben Affleck. His acting was pretty awful. I watched Justice League recently and it really felt like he was phoning it in/didn't give a gak. He just had no energy as Batman or Bruce. Which is crazy because Bruce is supposed to be a big playboy party guy and when he was Bruce, he just seemed like an old fart who needed his rocking chair.

Also the batsuit looks like they fished it out of a trashcan and he got blind al to sow it up for him. But that probably isn't Afflecks fault.

I think the whole point was that this was an ageing and tired Batman who was super angry in Bats vs Sups, felt he got Sups killed and was now regreting it, hence the muted version..

Best Bruce I felt was Keaton and he was no party animal but he did(does) have a twitch slightly mad energy.

Keaton was good but then again, he is in almost everything.

I also liked the Bale version of Bruce. He made a point to be a showman and a life of the party to distract from his special activities.

 Just Tony wrote:

Mr Morden wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
I liked Cavil as Supes, well, I liked the potential he had to be a good supes. You saw glimpses of it, if he is gone thats a shame.

Batfleck has been my favorite live action Batman and Bruce Wayne, he played both persona's very well. While he will never top the best Batman, Conroy, he is good and I would like to see more of him in the role as older Bats.

Ideally if Alfeck is leaving they would set up Dick Greyson and just have him take over as Bats for the DCEU.

Other than the ongoing mutiple car crash that was Eisenberg's terrible portayal of Luther I am not sure any of the DC roles have been miscast.

Batman -Angry Batman worked for me - he kills people, meh - so did Keaton's
Wonder Woman - great choice, pretty much flawless
Superman - no issues with him at all, seemed to work well and the ladies I know were certainly impressed.
Flash - again all good.
Aquaman - all good
Cyborg - all good

Deadshot - Its Will Smith - if you like him (I do) all good.
Harley - Margot was ace.

Even Carla Delevegne was fine at first - if they had given her something to do after the first half other than undulate......

its not the cast thats the problem.

The Flash was okay? Really? If they had named him ANYTHING other than Barry Allen, I'd agree with you. As it stands, I don't know WHAT the hell that was, but it wasn't The Flash.

JL Flash should have been Wally West, thats just me speaking from knowing the character of Wally mostly through the JL and JLU cartoon though.

As for someone mentioning Bale's Bruce, the only part that did anything for me was him doing some of the playboy bits. But even then, I prefered the hints at it through him waking up with a random woman in BvS and Alfred's nagging across BvS and JL about him being single. He was Batman at a different stage of his life and we didnt need to see him constantly trying to be the playboy.

In the comics batman has existed in various times and places as different things. A caveman. A cowboy. An actual ninja. A communist. What every one of those batmen has been is a detective. They ALWAYS investigate the enemy and beat them by finding out and exploiting weaknesses and being smart enough to do so. By discovering their plan and thwarting it. By figuring out who dun it and tracking them down.


Batmans fighting can vary wildly. He doesnt have to be "a ninja". But he does have to be a detective. Its his actual key ability that defines him.

 Lance845 wrote:
In the comics batman has existed in various times and places as different things. A caveman. A cowboy. An actual ninja. A communist. What every one of those batmen has been is a detective. They ALWAYS investigate the enemy and beat them by finding out and exploiting weaknesses and being smart enough to do so. By discovering their plan and thwarting it. By figuring out who dun it and tracking them down.


Batmans fighting can vary wildly. He doesnt have to be "a ninja". But he does have to be a detective. Its his actual key ability that defines him.

Problem being our current films and telly doesn't do clever well, we'd end up with a CSI level magic lab Batcave or him pulling stuff out of his Bat-End that the viewer had no previous hint at (see later Beenybaby Cummerbund Sherlock)

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Keaton was good but then again, he is in almost everything.

I also liked the Bale version of Bruce. He made a point to be a showman and a life of the party to distract from his special activities.

That movie went through so many changes to its script and tone that I can't really blame Affleck for struggling.

The Batsuit is the best we've seen on film IMO. Looks right out of a Jim Lee illustration. Although I'll say I like the BvS version better than the slightly-different JL version.

The primary issue with using Snyder as the foundation for an MCU competitor is that Snyder himself doesn't really like comics in the form of an ongoing medium. He's clearly fond of a specific brand of fatalistic, deconstructionist brand of comics and while those stories ARE great, they're inherently limited. They're about collapse and failure and end in ways that don't really contribute to long running franchises. Mix that with a bit of a blank check for reimaginings in the wake of Nolan's success (which also had limited ongoing appeal) and you end up with characters that just don't function together as needed for a shared world.

I can't really blame the actors for any of it. They might be bad? They might be good? It's hard to tell based on what they've been given to work with. Ultimately though, the blame seems to really point to WB itself and their tendency to chase trends. The MCU works because its essentially a product of the forced will of the creators of the comics to realize the appeal of the source material in movies. WB seems to only tangentially understand the appeal of the characters it owns and keeps assuming it can make money by slamming them into whatever seemed big in the years before they got someone to try and copy things.

EDIT: Fixed the director mix up

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Yes, when I go to a Batman movie my primary concern is if it will be believable.







(I was lying. However, I felt that was better than asking what part of the Nolan trilogy was believable. That microwave emitter plot was up there with dehydrating the UN Security Council on the reality-o-meter.)

I see what you did there!

Adam West/Burt Ward 4 Life!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
In the comics batman has existed in various times and places as different things. A caveman. A cowboy. An actual ninja. A communist. What every one of those batmen has been is a detective. They ALWAYS investigate the enemy and beat them by finding out and exploiting weaknesses and being smart enough to do so. By discovering their plan and thwarting it. By figuring out who dun it and tracking them down.


Batmans fighting can vary wildly. He doesnt have to be "a ninja". But he does have to be a detective. Its his actual key ability that defines him.

Problem being our current films and telly doesn't do clever well, we'd end up with a CSI level magic lab Batcave or him pulling stuff out of his Bat-End that the viewer had no previous hint at (see later Beenybaby Cummerbund Sherlock)

So just like the Sherlock source material then!

 LunarSol wrote:
WB seems to only tangentially understand the appeal of the characters it owns and keeps assuming it can make money by slamming them into whatever seemed big in the years before they got someone to try and copy things.

It's interesting to me that Justice League Mortal would have launched a shared DC universe right about the same time as Iron Man. Christopher Nolan -- famously not a fan of shared universes for these characters -- helped get that shut down. Before that -- per The Fanboy podcast guy (he has good sources) -- it's not an accident that the titles for Batman Begins and Superman Returns fit together so well. Nolan probably wouldn't have liked where that would have gone either, but apparently it was an idea brewing within the studio that they were setting up. And even after the MCU launched, Green Lantern was looked at as the possible beginning of a DCU. It wasn't until MoS (ironically involving the Nolans) that they got a film to stick enough to build on.

Seems like the trouble really came in at that point. They asked Nolan to Feige the whole thing and he turned them down. So they turned to Zack Snyder and handed him a billion dollars to go build a universe, apparently without understanding what they needed or what Snyder was going to build. At that point, yes they were probably blinded by MCU box office receipts, didn't understand those characters' appeal, and frankly were just asleep at the wheel until BvS opened like it did.

Getting back to directors with specific visions for specific characters and not sweating the shared part much -- that seems much more in WB's wheelhouse.

Adam West is and has always been my Batman.

But Ben Affleck did as good as job as anyone with the gawdawful mess he was handed. I didn’t like Dark Knight Rises very much and was concerned when Affleck was first announced, but much like Michael Keaton, he surprised me with how well he played the part. Keaton was just fortunate enough to have a better script and director.

I dont think the Nolan movies will age well. There is simply too much Bruce Wayne and not enough Batman. And the while I love Scarecrow, Joker, Two Face, I just feel most are forgettable actors.

Batman has evolved with the times. I thought it was great they made the Keaton's Batman, but while I thought Keaton was good as Batman, I thought he was a lame Bruce Wayne. But the film couldn't be made more violent where as today its expected to be. Nolan's Batman grounds and modernizes it, but aside from the Joker scenes the whole series is kind of forgettable.

I really thought they were on to something with Suicide Squad, Afleck's Batman, and even Caville as Superman: He nailed the look for me. And while the gorgeous Gal Gadot can't act, she makes for one gorgeous Wonder Woman.

I think part of the problem for DC are the characters. Their powers are all mismatched. You need to draft a story so that each can shine within the story arc that another can't do to make them all feel like they are on the same level, which is lazy. Superman is really too powerful and should be able to handle everything on his own. Wonder Woman's powers really don't make much sense. Cyborg is really boring. Flash, well... I have never seen the draw to him. Batman, while the more realistic, is overpowered by everyone. Oh and then there is Aquaman, who is all about fighting crime and saving the world while humans pollute his home and kill off all the animals and coral reefs? lol

Anyway, part of the problem with WB/DC rebooting these characters over and over again is that everyone is sick of the origin stories. We've seen them too many times. Yet, its hard to start a reboot without capturing the moment the stories started.

Marvel got lucky but it didn't take long for them to get their plan together and stick to it. They have a lot more fun characters too. But they manage their own affairs and know their characters. DC gives WB too much freedom and WB gives their directors too much freedom. What you get is a lot of shooting from the hip rather than any plan. They should have wrapped up Caville for a lot longer than they did.

I don't think JL is that good of a movie. Especially since Superman was dead and they brought him back. They have nothing to build up to now. That is part of the problem with Man Of Steel and seeing Metropolis getting wrecked. It was probably fine for a one-off movie, but now where do you go? So much was trashed in the first battle that if you don't have the same level of destruction in the others there feels like there was less at stake. And I hate these massive destruction battles, unless they come at the climax of the story.

Marvel individual movies didn't have any of that, the stories were more grounded so by the time the aliens are coming through the portal in Avengers, you realize how big of a moment this is.

Well put. Let’s be honest, DCs characters are kind of all over the place. Superman is hilariously, ridiculously overpowered, whilst it takes some serious story telling gymnastics to keep Batman up with the others. I’ve no idea how that could be addressed tbh.

You balance Batman against overpowered Superman and WW by doing what they've done in the comics for many years -- you overpower his brain. Batman is always two steps ahead, always has a flawless plan that can be carried out flawlessly, etc.

You balance Superman by giving him loved ones that are vulnerable and villains that are on his power level. Like they've done in the comics for decades.

Those kinds of narratives are offered up by people who obviously don't read comics, because the answers are IN the comics. Ask Mark Waid or Grant Morrison if Superman is hard to write for and they'll laugh at you.

Best Batman was Lego Batman. All other choices are inferior.

 KTG17 wrote:
I dont think the Nolan movies will age well. There is simply too much Bruce Wayne and not enough Batman. And the while I love Scarecrow, Joker, Two Face, I just feel most are forgettable actors.

I really thought they were on to something with Suicide Squad, Afleck's Batman, and even Caville as Superman: He nailed the look for me. And while the gorgeous Gal Gadot can't act, she makes for one gorgeous Wonder Woman.

Anyway, part of the problem with WB/DC rebooting these characters over and over again is that everyone is sick of the origin stories. We've seen them too many times. Yet, its hard to start a reboot without capturing the moment the stories started.

Marvel got lucky but it didn't take long for them to get their plan together and stick to it. They have a lot more fun characters too. But they manage their own affairs and know their characters. DC gives WB too much freedom and WB gives their directors too much freedom. What you get is a lot of shooting from the hip rather than any plan. They should have wrapped up Caville for a lot longer than they did.

Marvel individual movies didn't have any of that, the stories were more grounded so by the time the aliens are coming through the portal in Avengers, you realize how big of a moment this is.

Nolan is massively overated, otherwise can;t agree with anything you say - but each to their own.

Batman has evolved with the times. I thought it was great they made the Keaton's Batman, but while I thought Keaton was good as Batman, I thought he was a lame Bruce Wayne. But the film couldn't be made more violent where as today its expected to be. Nolan's Batman grounds and modernises it, but aside from the Joker scenes the whole series is kind of forgettable.

Burtons Batman is way more violent film than and Joker way more mad and dangerous than Heath Ledgers - he also does not rely on flawless precog abilities to do stuff through most of the film. He kills a museum full of people just to be alone with Vicky Vale, Ledger kills a few mobsters, Jack tries to poison the whole city - cos its funny. He makes "art" of his girlfriend - using acid. Scary guy.

I think part of the problem for DC are the characters. Their powers are all mismatched. You need to draft a story so that each can shine within the story arc that another can't do to make them all feel like they are on the same level, which is lazy. Superman is really too powerful and should be able to handle everything on his own. Wonder Woman's powers really don't make much sense. Cyborg is really boring. Flash, well... I have never seen the draw to him. Batman, while the more realistic, is overpowered by everyone. Oh and then there is Aquaman, who is all about fighting crime and saving the world while humans pollute his home and kill off all the animals and coral reefs? lol

Funny cos i felt that about Iron man, Hawkeye and the rest of the Marvel characters before the films - most of them i had barely heard off and nothing good.

Why don't Wonder Woman's powers make sense - she is a goddess, same as Thor is a god.

Batman is normally the clever one - the man with the plan.

I don't think JL is that good of a movie. Especially since Superman was dead and they brought him back. They have nothing to build up to now. That is part of the problem with Man Of Steel and seeing Metropolis getting wrecked. It was probably fine for a one-off movie, but now where do you go? So much was trashed in the first battle that if you don't have the same level of destruction in the others there feels like there was less at stake. And I hate these massive destruction battles, unless they come at the climax of the story.

JL does many things well - they don;t bother with long origin stories for Aquaman, Cyborg or Flash - they just get on with it and it works much better for it. Man of Steel had the worst fight final scene of a superhero film that I can recall - the bats vs Superman version of the same fight was so much better. But then pretty much every scene WITHOUT Loopy Lex worked for me in that film. Although BvS was ohh yeah the fight is in the magical empty bit of the city.......that was weak.

Re Keaton and Bruce - anyone can do Batman - most of us have done it round the game table, Wayne is the difficult one - and I thought he nailed it - someone who was broken but mostly conceals it, so you just catch glimpses.

Best Batman was Lego Batman. All other choices are inferior.

Ok thats true.

 Frazzled wrote:
Best Batman was Lego Batman. All other choices are inferior.

That director (Chris McKay) is attached to a Nightwing (grown-up Dick Grayson) project that may or may not ever see the light of day.

The big translation loss with most DC characters for me has always been the characters themselves. They feel more defined in adaptations by their powers and how they got them then the person underneath which is the real appeal. There's a reason 6 characters all with the same Green Lantern powers isn't repetitive and its because GL stories are heavily driven by the character underneath.

I think part of the reason WB has so much success with Batman is that the "Bruce is the mask" concept translates into them "getting" Batman a lot easier than other characters. When it comes to people like Clark or Barry and the rest, they seem to think changing them into some other popular character and slapping on their power set is good enough. The movies need to get to the heart of the characters and what motivates them without the mask. This has always been what separates DC's best stories from its general schlock (outside of one off elseworld tales) and something that's really needed if they want to make anything more than Batman work.

 LunarSol wrote:
The big translation loss with most DC characters for me has always been the characters themselves. They feel more defined in adaptations by their powers and how they got them then the person underneath which is the real appeal. There's a reason 6 characters all with the same Green Lantern powers isn't repetitive and its because GL stories are heavily driven by the character underneath.

I think part of the reason WB has so much success with Batman is that the "Bruce is the mask" concept translates into them "getting" Batman a lot easier than other characters. When it comes to people like Clark or Barry and the rest, they seem to think changing them into some other popular character and slapping on their power set is good enough. The movies need to get to the heart of the characters and what motivates them without the mask. This has always been what separates DC's best stories from its general schlock (outside of one off elseworld tales) and something that's really needed if they want to make anything more than Batman work.

Agreed its what marvel do so well but I also thought they did it well in WW, JL and to a lesser extent in SS.

 LunarSol wrote:
The big translation loss with most DC characters for me has always been the characters themselves. They feel more defined in adaptations by their powers and how they got them then the person underneath which is the real appeal. There's a reason 6 characters all with the same Green Lantern powers isn't repetitive and its because GL stories are heavily driven by the character underneath.

I think part of the reason WB has so much success with Batman is that the "Bruce is the mask" concept translates into them "getting" Batman a lot easier than other characters. When it comes to people like Clark or Barry and the rest, they seem to think changing them into some other popular character and slapping on their power set is good enough. The movies need to get to the heart of the characters and what motivates them without the mask. This has always been what separates DC's best stories from its general schlock (outside of one off elseworld tales) and something that's really needed if they want to make anything more than Batman work.

See, I didn't have issues with Ezra Miller's Flash because I thought the underlying concept was on target. The personality was obviously closer to Wally West than Barry Allen, who historically was a fairly straight-laced, boring guy.

But what JL showed was an emergent superhuman -- a guy who was completely normal all his life but gained infinite gifts in an instant (one can make the case for Flash being more powerful than Superman). So to portray him as an unsure guy still figuring out his abilities and what he should be doing with them...that actually rang pretty true to me. The Flash wasn't born to greatness, nor was he self-made. It wasn't a position and weapon he was given. It's just something that happened to him, and it makes sense that the character would spend a lot of time and energy coming to terms with it.

That's my point though. There are dozens of stories about "kid gets super speed" and JL sure told one of those. It's a really common power set at this point. What it didn't really tell was a story about the Flash and certainly not Barry Allen. Their comics fall apart when they forget this too, but its really the movies where we've repeatedly seen this fail.

Well, it seems clear that there was a struggle with JL regarding how deeply to dive into Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman. All three characters had more stuff shot...some of it even made it into trailers. Supposedly there was a lot of stuff involving Cyborg and his dad, which might have given you some of what you're asking for.

But was the JL film the place to explore that? I'm not sure. It wasn't until Age of Ultron that we learned more about what makes Black Widow and Hawkeye tick, and I didn't feel like those characters didn't work until then.

IIRC, James Wan said that he told Snyder not to go to deeply into Aquaman and Atlantis, so that he could properly explore them in the solo film. Maybe it would have helped to have solo films first for all characters, but Marvel made it work just fine without doing that.