Different multiverse. The DC multiverse and the Marvel multiverse are both part of a larger omniverse. To make things more confusing, there are universes in the Marvel multiverse that houses DC characters.
Well, the second season of "Lois & Clark" featured Lex's ex-wife (Ariana Carlin), and the opening of "Superman Returns" shows Lex having married some old lady (played by Noel Neill), to get his hands on her money.
I'd imagine that it's those two,
Why do people always insist on using the previz image of Blue Beetle when discussing the Smallville version? That's not how the suit looks in the actual episode.
It's difficult to get excited about something, when we don't actually know anything. All we know is that these characters will be in the film, but we don't know to what extent.
From a basic narrative standpoint, I'd say that these characters are there to establish this as a shared universe (with other, non-Superman related, superheroes existing) from the start.
For all we know, the extent of their involvement is them just being shown in a couple of TV news reports played over the course of the movie.
Actually, Lana turns 18 in the season 4 premiere (she's actually a year older than Clark and Chloe, even if they never explain why she's in the same grade).
As for Jason, they never establish his age. He's depicted as a college student at Central Kansas, and Clark mentions that Jason had his freshman year at Metropolis University. This would then make Jason somewhere between 19 and 21 in 2004, or 1-3 years older than Lana.
Granted, him working at the school and dating a student is messed up (on his podcast ("Inside of you"), Michael Rosenbaum has talked about how that wouldn’t be done today). Though, the only character to insist that it's okay is Lana, who keeps pointing out that they're both adults.
The Jason character was created because of demands from the network (to give Lana a boyfriend), rather than the writers having an idea for a new character.
FYI, that is not actually how she looks in the Smallville episode featuring her. What you have there is a previz promotional photo.
Things are a bit more complicated than that the character will simply enter public domain. First off, it'd be like the Superman (characterization, power set, etc.) in Action Comics #1 that is in public domain. Later added elements (additional powers, characters (ex. Zod, Kon-El, Maggie Sawyer, Doomsday, Ron Troupe, Supergirl), and stuff like the Fortress of Solitude) would still fall under copyright.
When someone is using the public domain version of Lois, they'd have to line her up with her Action Comics #1 characterization. If they write her like the Donnerverse, Lois & Clark, Smallville, or DCEU Lois Lanes (possibly even stuff like the John Byrne revamped Lois Lane from the 1980s), they'd be in violation of copyright law.
The "S"-shield has been redesigned numerous times over the decades. If you use the wrong one (ex. the Kingdom Come shield, introduced/created in the 1990s), you'd be in violation of copyright law.
So, no, DC would have nothing to fear. As anyone else using Superman would be unable to use any of the stuff from the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and so on (which would include the majority of his rogues gallery). If someone writes a story, where Superman goes up against Doomsday (introduced in the 1990s), they'd be in violation of copyright law (and DC could just sue this person).
By "woman", do you mean female character, female writer, female artist, or female editor?
Character: Wonder Woman.
Writer: Probably Gail Simone.
Artist: ?
Editor: Jenette Kahn.
Got to be Catwoman (2004). Sharon Stone intends to sell an anti-aging cream, that causes your skin to fall apart if you stop using it (while turning your skin into living marble, if you keep using it). Really? That's your evil villain plan? Selling bad skin cream?
Haven't seen it since it was first released, but as I recall it her motivation was revenge. No idea on whom. Do they establish it in the film? Doubt it could be men, as men don't really use anti-aging creams. Leaving them unaffected by the cream's side effects. Young women (specifically the models who've come in and replaced her)? Probably too young to start worrying about wrinkles. Depending on who they are, they might never care at any age. Not all women obsess over youth and beauty.
With all those people removed from a possible target group... what's left? Older women, who are more obsessed with youth and beauty. Likely working in a beauty-centric industry like modeling. So... she wants revenge on middle aged models?
Regardless, her intended pool of victims would be small. Not to mention, the authorities would start to investigate, when women start to experience health problems. Tracking it to Stone's anti-aging cream. She'd then likely be charged and convicted for knowingly selling a toxic product. Her corporation would also be eaten alive by multimillion dollar lawsuits, from hundreds or thousands of women.
In the slightly modified words of Joseph L. Mankowitz: "Why would I want to make Flashpoint? I wouldn't even go and see Flashpoint".
The concept really doesn't interest me as a movie. Also, probably a hot take, but it'd be more interesting if Barry discovered that Henry really did kill his mom (rather than an evil time traveler). Barry's spent his whole life, convinced that his dad is innocent. Then his whole world is rocked, upon discovering the truth. They would not let me make that picture.
Then is the fact that the Flashpoint movie is currently scheduled to be released November 4, 2022. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is scheduled to be released March 25 of that year. It'll just look like DC/WB is copying Marvel Studios, if they do a multiverse movie.
I think that a lot of it has to do with the Donnerverse, which did it and played it to dramatic effect. They showed the seemingly all-powerful Clark/Superman being unable to save someone from a simple heart attack. And a lot of writers have attempted to copy that moment since then.
In the case of Smallville, quite literally. Seriously, Jonathan's death scene is basically a fleshed out recreation of Jonathan's death scene in Superman the Movie. In both, Jonathan has a fatal heart attack and dies, right outside of the barn on the Kent farm. With Clark (18 in both) and Martha by his side.
Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman let Jonathan live. However, the motivation there was Deborah Joy LeVine feeling the need to give Clark someone that he could talk to openly. Someone who'd know that Clark is Superman.
Earth-167 is a definite. After all, per existing Smallville continuity, Crisis on Infinite Earths already happened between 2011 and 2012. With most Earths being established as having been destroyed. Including Earths 2, 9, 13 and 37 (with 2 and 13 being distinct from the 2 and 13 in the Arrowverse). So, it and Earth-167 literally can't be the same.
I'd probably recommend giving Earth-89 separate pages too. After all, it has a living Joker. We could end up with some editors changing Jack Napier (Burtonverse) to living, while someone else creates a Joker II (Burtonverse) article. Either scenario would fall under fan speculation. All we can say is that Earth-89 has a living Joker (but, seemingly no Robin, Batgirl or Superman, based on Robert Wuhl's dialogue).
Looking at some articles. One editor created a Kal-El (Arrowverse: Earth-96) article, that another editor tagged for merging with Kal-El (Superman Returns) (that still have the Crisis section).
Then there are some character articles (ex. Helena Kyle (Birds of Prey)), where they're listed as having died in the Crisis crossover, while other character articles don't.
My personal favorite is Batwoman (TV Series) Episode: Crisis on Infinite Earths: Part Two. It has links for Kal-El (Arrowverse: Earth-96) and Kal-El (Arrowverse: Earth-167). However, the other Earth-96 and Earth-167 links goes to the Superman Returns and Smallville character articles.
We really need to do something about this, before we end up with a massive(r) mess.
Treating the universes, in the crossover, as the real deal would open a massive can of worms. They only showed Earth-89 (supposed Burtonverse) for a few seconds, and had the Joker be alive. Treating Earth-89 as the actual Burtonverse would cause problems. Have they retconned the death of Jack Napier? Or is this a separate Joker, who've emerged in the years since? No doubt, it would probably cause a lot of bad edits, by editors who assume one of the two scenarios to be the case (without definitive proof).
Then, of course, is the Darkseid issue. He is mentioned in the Justice League movie. However, Darkseid was also on Smallville. Chaos establishes that there is only one Darkseid (him), in the entire multiverse, who travels between different realities. By treating Earth-167 as the actual Smallville universe, we'd end up in a scenario where any mentions or appearances of Darkseid in the DCEU (and any other continuity, that this crossover have placed within this one multiverse), would have to be considered a mention or appearance by Darkseid (Smallville).
Got mixed feelings if we should differentiate between Arrowverse: Earth-1 and Arrowverse: Earth-Prime. On the one hand, like Tupka217 notes, it'd be a SEO and UX nightmare. On the other hand, the big question is what past characters and events are still in continuity to Earth-Prime. By not differentiating between the pre-Crisis universes (Earth-1, Earth-38 and Black Lightning's Earth) and the post-Crisis Earth-Prime, we should end up with jumbled messes of character articles (trying to fit in both pre-Crisis and post-Crisis information).
In regard to Earth-66, Earth-89, Earth-96 and so on, it'd probably be for the best to treat them as a separate thing from the 60's Batman show, the Burtonverse, Superman Returns, etc. The multiverse has been destroyed and recreated. Did it affect anything on any of these other Earths (well, for one thing, I don't think that the post-Crisis Earth-19 have the same history as the pre-Crisis Earth-19. For one thing, they've got access to coffee)?
Earth-96 Superman is sporting a different, more colorful crest (in his part 5 cameo), than when he first showed up in the crossover. Is that supposed to hint toward events having taken a different turn on his Earth (post-Crisis)? We don't know. So, we can't be sure if the death of Lois Lane (and others) is still in continuity/canon (to the continuity of Superman Returns). Does Lois and Clark of Earth-167 still have daughters, post-Crisis (would suck if they don't, because I liked them having daughters, as all other versions seem to have sons)? Is the Joker still alive on Earth-89, post-Crisis?
We used to have one, it was decided to drop it.
Schroeswald wrote: but Diane Prince and John Jones were adopted as adults and irregularly used.
I'd like to add: in some iterations Diana Prince and John Jones are real people, whose identities have been borrowed/taken over by Wonder Woman and Martian Manhunter.
Two of them have only appeard once or twice in an adaptation (so, there is a lack of appearances). There also doesn't seem to be anything to indicate that they're a seperate team from the Meteors, rather than just the team that've had their name changed for the adaptation. Meaning we'd be dealing with the same situation as with LuthorCorp and L-Corp on Smallville and Supergirl. The company might be called something else, but is still their version of LexCorp.