Dammit DC, stop doing this.

I've been catching up on lost time on my none DC related Blogging subjects while trying to find out how to put into word how wowed I am by closing episodes of The Flash's First Season.

And then I read this.

When the reports that the movie was why Deadshot was killed off came out I chose not to believe them, now I'm pissed.

I expressed how excited I was about what DC is doing on Television.  I said I was glad they are separate universes both from each other and the Cinematic Universe.

But the entire point of WHY I was glad for that was that we could see different takes on different characters.

I thought we were done with the days of the Bat embargo and Smallville having all kinds of limitations on it.

I'm fine with the notion that the big three, Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman, can't appear on TV shows (in their fully formed forms) as long as everything else is fair game.

I'm sick of DC always giving the movies first dibs, and then being afraid TV will cause confusion.  The know the animated projects we don't get confused by, or the Comics themselves which aren't even all the same canon due to DC bringing the Multiverse back.

Arrow had a 5 year plan mapped out in advance.  I'm sure not every detail, but a lot of basic things.  And I haven't exactly been thrilled with much of what they've done each season. But to then because a movie is green lite take away assets they were banking on is just plain mean.

And they are being illogically selective.  The Flash is the lead and title character of both a TV show and am upcoming Movie, and both Flashes are Barry Allen.  They aren't afraid that will be confusing.  But recurring characters are confusing?  One Floyd Lawton is white and one is black but they are afraid people won't be able to tell the difference?

This happens endlessly with Iconic characters who are no longer copyrighted.  We have lots of Sherlock Holmeses and Draculas and Frankensteins all over pop culture.  But we can only handle one Harley Quinn or Deadshot?

I don't even think Harley Quinn on Arrow would make sense, she can't exist without The Joker, The Joker can't exist without Batman, and I prefer no Batman or Superman in the DCWverse.

But it's the principle of the thing.

So I'm obviously not saying I want each television DC Universe to have one of every character.  But there are certain DC characters who it's in their DNA to be not limited to any one subsection of the DCU, Amanda Waller, assassins like Deadshot, organizations like HIVE.  The League of Assassins, while it's head is mainly a Batman villain it does have tentacles all over.  These are lesser known characters they have a created a great chance to show in a short time how versatile they are by letting different writers do different things.

Instead it looks like the reason the Teen Titans won't have Roy Harper or Wally West is because a different channel has dibs on them.  Having Dick and Barbara won't be seen as stepping on Gotham's toes however.  (And no Donna or Cassie because of weird contract stuff concerning Marston and Wonder Woman, but I suspect that'll be the same for the movies.)

Maybe their logic is that it's because they're lesser known then the big 2 and their supporting cast? We already have multiple Alfreds and Robins and Batgirls and Jimmy Olsens as cultural icons, from the movies alone before this new string of shows started.  But Roy Harper might seem to non comic readers that he was written for..... I forget the actors name.

But Gotham and Arrow both had their own Dollmaker without it being an issue?  They were in different seasons though, and now they're both dead.

It's all so stupid.

Look DC, I'm excited for your Movies, and for your TV shows.  I have a lot of faith in where you're going now in-spite of past problems, and have expressed that excitement to your harshest critics.  But if you continue to be afraid that some of your properties can't handle both, while consistently giving first dips to the medium that we actually spend less time in.  Your going to neuter a lot of your potential.

Comparing The Sign of The Cross to Quo Vadis

Besides just being set in the same historical context, both involved a high ranking Roman Soldier falling in love with a Christian slave girl, and Poppaea is interested in him to further complicate things. And both are films I like.

Mercia and Lygia

Comparing the females leads, I find Lygia was stale and two dimensional, she's a common example of how Christian good girls in these kinds of films often lack any real depth, she also comes off ridiculously naive at times, and the actress I didn't find to compelling either.

Mercia however while having some of those tendencies still comes off as a much more real character, I really felt for her watching the film, the Lesbian dance scene is not just there to make the film "Sexier" it's an important scene, as I haven't seen the censored version I can't even imagine how the movie could have gotten around it. You can see in the scene that Mercia is being tempted, she is struggling, melting a little to use their words, then she draws strength from the other Christians singing and it's a very powerful scene, and my favorite of the film.

If only it didn't reinforce negative perceptions of Homsoexuality it'd be perfect.  It is worth noting however that the most extreme Ant-Gay Christians tend to believe it not even possible for a truly saved person to even be tempted by homosexuality.  That having that inclination at all is a sign of being a Reprobate no longer even eligible for Salvation.  

I suppose there is room in my head canon to see Mercia as someone who in-spite of her revulsion to this obscene pagan display, would not disapprove of loving intimacy between two loving believers of the same sex.

I just noticed both male leads are named Marcus? Names sometimes escape me.

Now it's reversed, Fredric March's performance seems not very well fleshed out, going from admirable to a total dick from scene to scene without much warning, and at the end I didn't buy his conversion at all, it just seemed to come out of nowhere.

In Quo Vadis Robert Taylor's character is far from the most brilliantly written male lead, but at least I buy his character development, we see his view of the Christians slowly changing so his finale conversion scene seems very believable, and it makes a nice ending.

Nero Caesar

Charles Laughten was a great actor, but he didn't get to do much here, what he does is very good but I'd still have liked more.

Peter Ustinov gives a very compelling performance despite my historical objections to how Nero's depicted (He was a Tyrant but a component one, mentally unstable but not completely irrational) I still loved the performance a great deal, and it makes the film very entertaining.

Poppaea

I don't agree with this historical view of her, most of the bad things said about her come from historians of the senatorial class much latter. Josephus actually knew her and paints a very different picture, and there is no basis in any early Christian traditions for suggesting she was like a Herodias or Jezebel putting the idea for the persecution in Nero's head.

But putting that aside I do enjoy a good Femme Fatale, but frankly Patricia did not make a good one in my opinion. I didn't find her very attractive and nothing in her performance is very compelling.

But Claudette Colbert was awesome, she was Sexy and conniving and vindictive but not without depth either, she does rather steal the show.

The cast lacks in direct parallels after that, surprisingly The Sign of The Cross has neither Peter nor Paul, but a Titus and another old dude who's name escapes me. I don't know if that Titus was meant to be the one to whom Paul's Epistle is addressed. At any rate they play their role adequately.

In Quo Vadis, Paul's' role is smaller, already gone from Rome when the Fire happens. Truth is, based on the traditional sources it should be the opposite, The apocryphal Acts of Peter has Paul on his way to Rome when Peter is killed. They again play their role adequately, but not to compellingly, Peter's Crucifixion should have included some preaching from the cross, as is it feels kind of tacked on. And why are Peter and Paul so far apart in Age? I actually always assumed they'd be the same age.

No one else in SOTC really stands out after that. Quo Vadis has an again very undeveloped Acte (I find Acte's story fascinating, and don't really buy how it's handled here). And the Spanish slave girl is easily the most beautiful woman in the film, and gives a very passionate captivating performance but again doesn't feel to real to me, rather a little overdone.

The best character in Quo Vadis is probably Petronius, he's the character who's wise and noble despite not being a Christian at any point, "A heathen conceivably, but not an unenlightened one", providing the opposing voice when the discussion of scapegoating the Christians comes up. Leo Genn's performance is very good.  Thing is, I would have given that role to Seneca, Seneca is in this film but as just another Roman senator, what makes him intriguing is lost, he was a Stoic philosopher, so Monotheism wouldn't have been unheard of to him.  I could see him tolerating Christianity in a similar vain to Gamaliel in Acts.

Taking the comparison beyond just stacking up the characters. Like with Mercia SOTC in general shows more humanity and depth from the Christians. The Torture scene is very well done, and the kid being so frightened at martyrdom makes the film feel more real.

But Quo Vadis is longer, which especially for this genre I prefer.  And with a bigger budget it's grander and has a more Epic/Theatrical/Operatic feel. The scenes of Nero and his entourage back at the palace during the fire, with Nero fiddling and then the Mob storming. And then the scene I mentioned earlier the debating whether to Scapegoat the Christians is very well done, my favorite part of the movie, I love how Petronius's whole argument is very well delivered.

So in general I'd have to say Quo Vadis comes off the more re-watchable film. Though a professional film critic would probably call SOTC the more well made film. I wish DeMille had gotten to remake more of his old Black and White films like he did The Ten Commandments.

However one thing I notice quite interestingly looking at my review is that The Sign of The Cross handles it's female characters better while Quo Vadis handled the male characters better. Not what you'd expect at all, an older film having the better written female leads then the younger one.  And connecting to another observation of mine, I think DeMille was probably a more conservative person then the creative team behind Quo Vadis.

Tolkien would have wanted his works to inspire Fan Fiction

I don't know where to find the quote now, but I'm pretty sure he had said he wanted in time other writers and artists to add to his mythology.  He knew full well no great mythology is formed entirely from the mind of only one person.  And I include in that both adding to the continuity and creating alternate continuities.

As massive as what he left us is, there is also much room to expand, even without continuing the story past the reign of Aragorn's son.  And if you do go past that the options are endless.

I think he would have wanted people with different backgrounds and experiences and perspectives then him to explore Arda in ways he couldn't.  So yes I think that includes women writers adding a female perspective.  Both further developing the female characters he already provided and creating more of them.  That is part of my defense of how lacking his handling of women was.

I think there is room even to expand Arda beyond just Middle-Earth, Numenor and Beleriand, and explore other less western (white) civilizations.  The Southorns and Easterlings get a bad wrap as seemingly just pawns of Morgoth and Sauron.  But Tolkien did leave more then enough hints that their being in that situation is not really their fault.  I love Faramir's speech at the end of disc one of The Two Towers extended edition.  In the book Sam said it, but I think that's one of the things the movies improved, Tolkien had described Faramir as the most like himself, and I see those words as coming from Tolkien's experience as a WWI solider.

I think it's also plausible to create all new Civilizations for Arda.  Both outside Middle Earth and maybe even within it.  During the second age we know next to nothing about the humans who lived in Middle Earth rather then Numenor.  Then there is the fact that the lands of Middle Earth did exist during the First Age, but the story of the First Age is entirely further west.  Why not invent some matriarchal Amazon like tribes for Arda, both within Middle Earth and without.  Some Edain Amazons who could make sense coming from an offshoot of Haleth's tribe, and some others too.

And the Dwarves (who had 7 clans but we only really ever see one) are equally as open.  The Dwarves seem far less likely to have ever had a matriarchal tribe, but the feminine side of the Dwarves is still entirely open for new writers.

Now it may seem difficult to believe a devout prudish Catholic like Tolkien would ever be Ok with Homosexuality being explored in his mythology.  But he also talked about Applicability, that a story should be interpreted beyond the Author's intent, even in conflict with it.

And you know what, I think it's telling that Tolkien never condemned Homosexuality at any point in his Legendarium (Lewis did with the Hardcaslte character in The Hideous Strength).  In-spite of how G rated his writing was when it came to Sex, he did address sex acts he viewed as wrong.  Eol and Ar-Pharazon are both Rapists in at least one version of their tales.

And Incest is explored, most famously with The Children of Hurin.  But what most annoys me about Tolkien's sexual morality is how harsh he is even to relationships between First Cousins.  The Bible not only never condemns it but even encourages it to an extent.  For the most part being grossed out by Cousin relationships is entirely modern, or Victorian in origin perhaps.  But Tolkien not only codifies it as wrong in Elvish law, but has it at the root of Meaglin becoming the Elvish Benedict Arnold.

So that he considered Same-Sex love less worth condemning then Cousin love, is interesting.  Tolkien also enjoyed a Lesbian Nurse Story.

Everyone has talked endlessly about the things in Tolkien that can be interpreted as male Homoerotisism.  But since Tolkien never passes the Bechel Test, actual relationships between women are virtually non existent.  So we have to look elsewhere for an excuse to interpret a character as Lesbian.

Tolkien may not have been aware of it, but it is now well known that Virginity in the ancient mythologies Tolkien drew on was often code for Lesbianism.  The most popular Tolkien character to see as possibly Lesbian by virtue of her seeming aversion to men is Tar-Ancalmine.  Unfortunately she seems to make a very problematic stereotype whatever orientation you give her.

The top two women in Tolkien I like to interpret as Monosexually Lesbian are Haleth and Tar-Telperien.  Both were leaders of their people who made a point of never being married.

Haleth as an early First Age human I don't even visualize as a Medieval person.  The Human tribes during the First Age I see as Ancient, but not Greeco-Roman Ancient, more like the Ancient pre-civilized Celtic and German/Norse tribes.  Haleth however seems to me like exactly the kind of woman who would wind up being a lover of Artemis.  Since I see some of Artemis in Nessa, I wind up shipping them together.  But there is also room to invent for her a human lover from her tribe, or have her meet an Elf.  A human from another tribe seems unlikely as I think she was always pretty far away from them.

Tar-Telperien, I have seen two people in the Fandom community already say she is Asexual in their head canon.  That is an equally valid interpretation from what little we are told about her.  But I really want to see a High Fantasy story about a Lesbian Queen, with a lover probably from a lower class.  Possibly drawing some inspiration from Berenice and Mesopotamia (free cookie if you know what I'm referencing).  And as far as room for that in Tolkien goes, Tar-Telperien is the best option.

All three Queens of Numenor get a bad wrap.  I feel like Tar-Telperien is the easiest to defend.  Her condemnation is entirely in her foreign policy.  Crap was going on in Middle Earth between Sauron and The Elves, and she choose to stay out of it.  In real life that is exactly the foreign policy I prefer as a former Ron Paul supporter, The U.S. should stay out of wars fought on other Continents.  It's hard to apply that to a fantasy setting where one of the Geo-Political entities is a literal Fallen Angel.  And I'm sure Tolkien had the WWII era American Isolationists in mind when he wrote characters like this.  But I for one will not condemn her for refusing to take her people to a war that did not really involve them.

She is also notable for being the only Ruling Queen who's known to have had a brother.  Speculation on that has been done elsewhere.  What I note here is the fact that her brother's son became her successor, and we do not know a name or identity for the mother of that son.  I think it's possible that if Tar-Telperien was exclusively Homosexual, but had a lover who was Bi/Pansexual, or at least more open to male-female intercourse for the purpose of reproduction then she was.  I could see her marrying her lover to her brother.

I do indeed consider the possibly of actual legal Gay Marriage in Arda unlikely, For the Elves Hetero-Intercourse and Marriage are the same thing.  We've seen in Fantasy and maybe History also examples of something like the above suggested arrangement with men.  A man in a royal gay male paring marrying his lover's sister.   Like Renly and Loras on Game of Thrones.

The Tolkien women who have loved men could certainly still be Bi.  But there is one more character I want to discus who's Sexuality is entirely up for debate.

Nienor Niniel, daughter of Hurin and sister of Turn Turambar.  Her relationship with her brother came about from the dragon Glaurung's manipulation of events, an argument can be made it tells us nothing about her actual Sexual Orientation.

You may be thinking "all he did it seems was wipe her memory?".  The key thing I think in Tolkien's mind was that their ignorance of their relationship to each other caused their natural sibling bond to be misinterpreted as romantic.  It didn't at all happen simply because she thought Turambar was Hot.

I found one Fan Fiction once were Niniel had a romantic relationship with Nellas before she went to search for Turin.  Then she survives her jump into the water, Nellas tracks her down and they raise the baby together.

Update:I'd like to thank Dawn Felagund for identifying the Quote I mentioned.

http://dawnfelagund.tumblr.com/post/119237448828/jaredmithrandir-olorin-tolkien-would-have-wanted

"I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd."

Another additional note. On my connecting Nessa to Artemis, It is notable that in the oldest versions Tolkien wrote she wasn't Tulkas wife yet, that was a separate Aniur.

Supergirl Trailer

Before I discus the Trailer, let's discus the air-date.

I had said I wanted it to air AFTER Gotham, a Bat show and Super show on the same day would be awesome.  But now it's announced that Supergirl will be airing AGAINST Gotham, and I'm WTF, CBS why would you do that, you have lots of time slots not against another Superhero show.

The Trailer has it's Haters, but I enjoyed it.  I said in an earlier post how this show seems to basically have Cat promoted to Perry and Jimmy promoted to Lois.  The trailer confirms what I was suspecting that this future Toyman is basically the usual Jimmy role.

Only things I didn't like was the Lesbian comments, because I really like to see Supergirl as a Lesbian in my Headcanon.

I like that the costume goes through phases, and we will get to see those Super Legs some.

Some haters are comparing it to that recent SNL Black Widow parody trailer.  That was a Joke because Black Widow is a Spy character.  What I like about the Superhero genre is that it's so easy to combine with other genres.  Batman can be a Mob film or a Crime Thriller, Winter Solider was a political thriller, and we have mythology films and space films.  So yes I think a Devil Wears Prada with Superheroes is a valid thing to try, I don't think a Superheroine needs to be Masculinized to be credible.  If you want Supergirl to be a fierce Warrior Goddess, well sorry but that's Wonder Woman and Gal Gadot is gonna give us that awesomely on the big screen, I don't need Supergirl to be the same.

I like the thoughts the people at SupergirlRadio had.

The scene towards the end where Jimmy is telling Kara about Superman's plan and gives her the cape, I feel like that confirms my theory that Superman has died.  That's the emotional vibe I got from it.

It looks like it's gonna be a fun show.

Gotham's first season is over

I'm not sure what I think.

They didn't Fridge Barbara in the sense of killing her off, but I am conflicted.

The notion some people have that she's not completely irredeemable is absurd.  I even still think her becoming Batwoman is still possible.

Fish's fate was left ambiguous.

Their interpretation of Riddler has decided to go with the whole he doesn't actually want to be compelled to leave clues behind rout, making him sort of OCD.  Which I have always hated, I prefer a Riddler who for him the Riddle Game is the end and the crimes are merely the means to an end.

The show remains incredibly fun to watch, I have a feeling they may be heading into Court of Owls territory now.

They better give Renee Montoya something to do next year.

I was mentioned quite a big in the latest FlashTVTalk

For the Grodd Episode.

I promoted my latest theories in the Live Chat while it was recording.  Only the Cobalt Blue one came up, they got it wrong at first and I pretended to be more mad then I really was for a moment.  Then they got it right and kept apologizing.  It was kind of funny.

Just to be clear, I never hold a Grudge.

And I also coined EddieObard

Flash Theories

First about Grodd.

I don't think this is the real Grodd exactly, or perhaps more accurately not the final Grodd.  Let me Explain.

This Grodd was still too dumb to me, maybe that's because it's still his Origin, but I don't know.

Many people may be upset about removing Ape City in exchange for making Grodd another product of the Accelerator.  But here is my idea.

I think this Grodd will somehow get time traveled back to the distant past and become the founder of Ape City.  And then in a future season from that will come the proper Grodd.  Someone named after the City's founder.

Now unto Eddie Thawn.  I do not believe he will become Cobalt Blue, I think all HGobard's talk about him being "almost completely forgotten" says he's not a big player.

Question is, if he is such a failure, what's the one thing that left him still a little remembered?  Many are remembered only for being the Lover of someone far more important.

I think Cobalt Blue will as usual be Barry's twin, but this time it's a female twin.  And she becomes Eddie's future Wife and also ancestor of Eobard.

One more thing, I ship SnowWest now.

More on how wrong the perceived difference between Marvel and DC movies is

On both sides it's the Marvel Vs DC people doing this the most, or at least they do it to the one they don't like.  As someone who likes all the movies but a very few (none in either current Cinematic Universe) I feel I have a more unbiased perception.

First off since Guardians of the Galaxy came out it's like people have been judging the entire MCU based on that film, and really a flanderized version of it, as if nothing was taken seriously and it had no depth, which is clearly wrong.  No other MCU film is as comedic, the amount of humor in them isn't really much more then you get in the DC films, DC just doesn't put the jokes in the trailers as much.

And the people praising what Marvel does over DC, go on about DC being ashamed of their properties because they seemingly tone things down to make them more realistic.  But the MCU films have also watered things down to make them less comicbooky, Zola wasn't actually a living Brain like Krang, the Guardians of the Galaxy had all the most Superpowered members of it's team removed. and the Collector was completely weakened.  Plenty in the MCU has felt Nolanized, not to mention Mandarin.

And of course the current DCCU only has one movie we've seen.  And the way I see it every glimpse we've seen of Batman V Superman and Suicide Squad has undermined the notion that DC is afraid to embrace the flamboyant aspects of their Universe.  It's funny actually, all the talk about how DC was running their movies by being to realistic, and now the SS pics come out and everyone is whining how unrealistic it looks.  They're clearly fully embracing the Magick of their universe way faster then it's taken Marvel.  And it's clear that Snyder was being held back from his more stylish style for MOS and isn't anymore for BvS.

I've even seen some claim that Ironically DC is less dark and serious then Marvel in the Comics and so find DC taking the darker rout for Movies a rejection of everything DC stood for.

That depends on what period you're talking about, if you're talking about the Silver and to a lesser extent Bronze age then yes, that's true.  The times when DC was loosing to Marvel in sales.

But the DC Comics I fell in love with as a child of the 90s and early 2000s were very dark.  Even the ones that had Superman.  Identity Crisis, OMAC Project, Infinite Crisis, the Teen Titans under both Wolfman/Perez and Geof Johns.  Batman getting his back broken, Superman dying and coming back, Hal going crazy, these are the stories that made me a DC fanatic.  And for Batman stuff like Bruce Wayne Murderer/Fugitive and War Games, and Under the Red Hood.  In the 90s was when Marvel was massively loosing to DC in sales.

The MCU does have plenty of darkness and seriousness.  And MOS had plenty of humor.

I've also seen haters of the current DC Cinematic Universe saying DC is doing it right on TV, and then putting Arrow and The Flash together just because they're technically in the same universe.  The Flash has been great, fantastic, marvelous.  Arrow however to me has been doing exactly what the DC Cinematic Universe is being falsely accused of.

If you're gonna refute that assessment with "Arrow included the Lazuarus pit for Ra's and the movies didn't". Those movies aren't in this Cinematic Universe, that's the problem, Nolan's style that was perfect for Batman but not so ideal for others is being assumed to still rule the upcoming DC films.  The things about MOS that were accused of coming from Nolan are clearly gone from Batman V Superman based on what we've seen so far.  And I don't think those things were actually Nolan's fault anyway, Nolan's movies certainly didn't desaturate their colors.  Of course the "Man of Steel in Color" video on Youtube is a fraud, MOS wasn't that desaturated as they claimed there.  But I do wish it had been brighter and it looks like BvS will be.

Having the Lazurus pit doesn't help Arrow's take on Ra's and the League of Assasins since they removed most of his exotic charisma, and has all the League members wearing the same boring looking costume.  And they removed his Eco Terrorist motivation and have him pretty much being Evil simply to be Evil.

Arrow had a strict rule against Super Powers until sharing a continuity with The Flash was thrust upon them.  Their Suicide Squad contained none of the truly Flamboyant members.  They've pretty much treated Oliver as if he were Batman, Oliver is not such a grim anti-social character in the Comics.  And they refuse to give Black Canary her authentic costume with the Iconic Fishnets, instead just making her look like a slighter more prudish Catwoman.  And of course they are taking their sweet time letting Ray Palmer shrink.

The recent SS pics show the Cinematic Universe is much more willing to embrace truly Comic Book like Costumes.  Harley Quinn will have more then one costume in the film, I too am not fond of the New52 based one in the first pics we saw, Arkham City had the ideal Harley costume to me.  But regardless it is from the comics.  And their look for Enchantress is less realistic then any form I've seen her have in the comics.

And sometimes the "toned down" version of the character, is more like how they originally were before later writers started exaggerating them.  That's why I love this Killer Cros look, I'm sick of the overdone Killer Croc we see in the Arkham games.  On the other hand, Echantress's look reminds me of what I don't like about Poison Ivy in the Arkham games.

What really bums me out about the BrosWatchPLLToo duo being so firmly on this DCCU hating bandwagon, is that I know they like me care a great deal about women being treated better in genre fiction.  The DC has had a horrible track record with this in the Comic all through the New52 and even a little before.  But in other media right now, especially with movies they are doing far better then Marvel.

Marvel continues to refuse to include Black Widow and Gamorra in the merchandising, while DC is making a new line for young Girls, I just hope it corresponds with better female representation in their main marketing lines.

The MCU is taking till Phase 3.5 to give us a female lead Solo film, and we know from leaked emails their CEO has no confidence in female lead Superhero films.  With DC we'll have Wonder Woman before then even though they got started later.  WW will be the 4th film total, 3rd after it was confirmed we're getting a universe, and before the first JL film.  Gail Simon said someone she trusts told her WW will be the best part of BvS, and I always knew Gadot would do awesomely.

Marvel kept the full Smurfette principle for it's first two team films and then just now upgraded to 2 women in a team of 9.  Suicide Squad will unfortunately have twice as many men as women, but at least DC has more then 2 women on the team right from the start.

And they aren't all White.  Age of Ultron featured all of the core 3's Black Friends in small roles, how diverse of them.

I have my concerns with both DC and Marvel's upcoming plans, but I remain excited for both.

You can make a shared Universe of just Batman

I'm serious, so many Batman supporting characters, including ones with currently no Mainstream recognizably, have carried their own spin off titles. There have been times when between a 4th to a 3rd of all monthly DC comics being published in the main continuity are set in Gotham city (or nearby Bludhaven). More Comics then marvel usually has about the core Avengers team members (X-Men is in fact Marvel's biggest franchise, which Fox is demonstrating by making a Shared Universe of just them). 

Start with a Batman solo movie where he works on his own, even though the others already exist, not unlike the first two Arkham Games.   Though Oracle can contribute and maybe at least a brief appearance from Robin.

Then do movies for Nightwing, Tim Drake Robin, Cassandra Cain Batgirl (Spoiler would have a supporting role in both) then movies for Birds of Prey, Catwoman and Batwoman. Then the team up movie can be called something like Batman: Gotham Knights. Maybe have two Solo Batman movies for each phase so we don't forget he's the star. 

That's how much bigger DC's universe is, Marvel could only do that with X-Men. DC's biggest is Batman, but at times Superman can be similar when you have Supergirl and Superboy, and some of the local Metropolis non powered Heroes like Steel, Guardian and Gangbuster, also Rose and Thorn. 

And DC could theoretically do it with Green Lantern too, have a Trilogy about Earth's Sector's current GL, and then one or two about the Corps out in Deep space (Don't forget there is a Squirrel GL who can rival GOTG's Racoon). then throw in The Corps unaffiliated GLs like Alan Scott, his daughter Jade and Guy Gardner back when he had a Yellow Ring. 

Recently I heard well over half of all DC's comics where those 3 franchises together. I just wish WW and Flash could grow that much, people love Diana's teen Sidekicks too, but they never get their own Serieses, just supporting roles in WW and Teen Titans. 

WB isn't gonna do that anytime soon, but when the current Cinematic Universe proves profitable, I think they may consider it 10 or so years down the road when it's time to Reboot again. 

But back specifically to the Batman shared Universe idea, I think that'd ideally be done with a TV Show format actually. For the basic Fall-Spring Season have several shows running (the titles I listed above, plus a Gotham Central Police Procedural), literally more or less make a brand new Network just for Batman shows. Then during each Summer between the seasons have a special miniseries for the Big Crossover events. 

But Warner will never do that, because the Big Screen always gets first dibs.