Originally Posted by
bat39
Well, in Ezra's case, a) the movie was already shot so there was no scope of replacing him without spending tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars, and b) all the stuff he's done or alleged to have done had nothing to do with his relationship with WB per se.
In the case of Ray Fisher, the guy specifically targeted a bunch of senior WB executives, accusing them of racism (or enabling racism) and generally made it a point to be a pain in the ass for the studio for a few years. Understandably they'd want to keep their distance.
WB is a business at the end of the day. No one's interested in morality and political ideology unless it makes/loses them money. Frankly, I don't think the majority of the audience gives a damn either. Even now, unless someone can specifically prove it, I don't think Ezra Miller's controversy necessarily caused the movie to perform poorly - sadly, there were a whole bunch of other factors at play. Including perhaps Miller's own poor performance in JL.
Honestly, I'm 99% sure Jason Momoa is staying. He's the one JL actor of the original six likely to stay in the DCEU, between Cavill and Affleck being out, Miller most likely being out, Fisher obviously being out and Gadot sort of being on the fence (but I'd bet potentially being out).
DC/WB isn't looking at this reboot from some kind of emotional perspective. They don't want to 'purge' the Snyderverse or whatever the way some people on this forum want to. They simply want a shift in direction, and they're willing to keep stuff that works (or at any rate, that Gunn worked on and wants to keep). Their goal is to turn a profit, not commit to the ideological purity of a hard reboot. If they feel Momoa is still a draw, and retains a fairly passionate fanbase as Aquaman, and if the actor is in and Gunn wants him, then he'll stay, irrespective of Aquaman 2's performance most likely.