By Evan Bevins

I’m conflicted about the upcoming “Flash” movie, and it isn’t even because of star Ezra Miller’s personal and legal issues.

I hope Miller gets needed help and court proceedings aren’t negatively impacted (for or against Miller) by the actor’s celebrity. But I was having a hard time keeping up with Warner Bros.’ intentions for the character and his (allegedly) standalone movie long before any of that.

Miller debuted as DC’s Scarlet Speedster with cameos in 2016’s “Batman v. Superman” and “Suicide Squad,” before co-starring in the Frankensteined “Justice League” the following year.

Though there have been at least four individuals to spend significant time in the Flash’s tights in the comics, the DC Extended Universe version was Barry Allen, probably the most famous among those options. Barry Allen was also the version of the Flash appearing on the CW as part of its Arrowverse lineup of shows. Central to that premise was the subplot that Grant Gustin’s Barry’s life had been shaped by the murder of his mother by a time-traveling Flash villain, with his father framed for the crime.

While Miller’s portrayal of the character is much different than Gustin’s and was, to me and minus one profane outburst, a highlight of the “Justice League” film, the story of his father being wrongfully imprisoned for his mother’s murder was also a defining part of his backstory. This isn’t a foundational detail like Batman’s parents being killed or Superman’s home planet of Krypton being destroyed but a relatively recent addition to the mythos, with Geoff Johns’ 2009 “Flash: Rebirth” series.

If you’re changing the personality and other details about the character (he’s more of an outsider, a college student rather than a police scientist or evidence technician), why keep the name and that one specific storyline? I would have thought making him an updated version of Jay Garrick, a la the New 52 Earth 2 parkour enthusiast, would have been a better option.

I forget how many writers and directors the project has gone through, but somewhere along the way, they settled on the “Flashpoint” storyline, which is noteworthy in the comics not so much because of the story itself (a good but fairly standard alternate timeline/dystopian tale) but it’s the (sort of) end of 25-plus years of DC continuity.

“Flashpoint” paved the way for the New 52, which compressed the timeline into five years, with some stories thrown out, some confirmed as having happened and others to be determined. Batman basically had a new Robin every 11 months.

There was talk that the Flash movie would reset the DC cinematic timeline, but I don’t feel like there was enough established to be reset. There have been some fine individual movies (“Wonder Woman,” “Shazam,” “Aquaman”) but the overall direction hasn’t ever been clear. Where Marvel, in my mind, succeeded was by putting out solid movies that served as building blocks for the cinematic universe rather than trying to paint a big picture that wasn’t fully formed.

Now that reset button has been confirmed, with James Gunn and Peter Safran joining forces to be the DC/Warner Bros. answer to Marvel’s Kevin Feige. It gives the remaining DC slate a sort of lame-duck feel.

And then there’s the rest of the cast of “Flash:” at least two Batmen (Michael Keaton and Ben Affleck), a dark-haired Supergirl and… General Zod? That last one wouldn’t be as strange if Henry Cavill’s Superman hadn’t had a cameo reportedly cut from the film, with his time as the Man of Steel officially up. And if Keaton’s Batman is so awesome, why did the Batgirl movie get shelved as a tax writeoff?

But there’s not much emphasis on any, y’know, Flash characters other than Barry and, thanks to the magic of the multiverse, Barry.

So, I’m clearly not looking forward to “The Flash,” set to release June 16, right?

Except, I kind of am.

That Super Bowl trailer was exciting. All those non-Flash-adjacent guest stars, especially Keaton, look like fun.

Maybe the remaining DC movies are lame ducks in the sense that they won’t be getting sequels, at least until another wave of nostalgia sweeps through in 15 or 20 years. But a movie, ideally, should stand on its own. None are promised sequels, let alone cinematic universes, even when they’re planned and expected (see Tom Cruise’s “Mummy” remake). When I wondered what the goal of this movie is, a friend answered simply but accurately that the studio wants to sell tickets. And if the people who buy those tickets are entertained, all this other stuff I’ve been speculating about is secondary.

Evan Bevins can be reached at ebevins@newsandsentinel.com.