BvS All Things Superman and Batman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 49

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]477873[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]477229[/split]

 

[Orb]

Sure you can aim for the stars but sometimes the talent to get there can be in hidden or unknown faces. Look at this movie for an example. We have an unproven actors like Gal Gadot and Ray Fisher and a less-then-stellar actor like Jason mimosa (spelling?). These shows are restricted by a tight budget but what they do with that budget is incredible. A TV show doesnt negate whatever film follows (EX: Agents of Shield)
EDIT: WOOOT FIRST POST FOR PART 49!!!!

 

[Iceman]

That's a good point. Marvel has this difficult balancing act where they need to have each hero be able to carry their own franchise and have their own stories and adventures, but at the same time they are trying to connect everything into a cohesive universe. They've mostly succeeded of course but there are pitfalls in Marvel's strategies (that will start to appear as we go on imho) that I think DC can avoid if that Sixokay article is right about DC's strategy. <--Yes I totally stole that from one of the mods here who has it as their sig. Go read it if you haven't.

If DC utilizes a similar strategy to that laid out in the article then the idea of always have team-up movies avoid the trap some Marvel movies fall into of trying to balance an individual, self contained, story while maintaining a shared universe.

Sounds interesting but I'm not sure it goes with his output target as they may as well just do JL films then. This sounds like the same thing with 3 or 4 JL members stripped out from each film. He says DC/WB can release at most 1 film a year, more likely one every 2 years. If you combine all that, the members outside of the big 5 like Cyborg could go a long time (6 years if he skips 2 films in a row) without being in a film at all. Could be difficult with contracts and retaining the same actors, especially if they have no hope of getting a solo film at any point.

 

[DChero]

What exactly is so bad about Arrow? The production value and acting are fine for network television. It's much easier to get good performances and effects for movies because time allows for more takes. There's a big differences in the level of flexibility. To get 45 minutes of footage, a production company typically has about 2 weeks for television. For a full length movie, they would have close to two months (for bigger budget movies). Too many people don't understand this.

 

[luis4u]

What exactly is so bad about Arrow? The production value and acting are fine for network television. It's much easier to get good performances and effects for movies because time allows for more takes. There's a big differences in the level of flexibility. To get 45 minutes of footage, a production company typically has about 2 weeks for television. For a full length movie, they would have close to two months (for bigger budget movies). Too many people don't understand this.

Please keep arrow separated even lemire green arrow is separated..t:t:

 

[Jekecy]

What exactly is so bad about Arrow? The production value and acting are fine for network television. It's much easier to get good performances and effects for movies because time allows for more takes. There's a big differences in the level of flexibility. To get 45 minutes of footage, a production company typically has about 2 weeks for television. For a full length movie, they would have close to two months (for bigger budget movies). Too many people don't understand this.

Exactly, it's fine for where it's at. But I'm not yet convinced its deserving of an upgrade to stand toe to toe on a Hollywood level. This isn't just a matter of resources. If you could link to specific scenes or episodes which show otherwise I'd be open to check it out.

 

[113]

The exact same can be said of 95% of comic book movies when compared to grade-A writing, directing, and acting in movies. I don't think anyone is expecting Arrow to be True Detective.

I guess people say it, but then again there are people who think comic book movies are on the same level as movies like 12 Years a Slave and Her.

I was referring to A-list acting talent of which Cavill, Affleck, and Amy Adams are all apart of. I'm not comparing a CBM to Oscar nominated films, of course not. I'm simply saying if you compare the acting talent in Man of Steel or TDK, to Arrow or Smallville it's not even close. Again, we're talking about the difference between A-list acting talent and B-list acting talent. That's not to say a B-list actor can never become A-list and visa versa (it does happen). But there is a reason none of the Smallville cast went on to have big, successful, Hollywood careers.

And as someone who loved Smallville when I was younger and who has watched all of Season 2 of Arrow I feel the acting talent is comparable. It works for television, specifically on a channel like The CW, but it's not on par with the talent we see on the big budget movies. I don't see how that's all that controversial, it seems pretty obvious....then again when I was a teenager I thought Tom Welling would be the perfect Superman for the big screen too. Nowadays I see how wrong that thinking was.

 

[CK_ALL_DAY]

That's the kicker; if the barometer for quality is comic book shows, than that's the setting the bar incredibly low. Quality television is exploding these days. To the point where their cinematic quality is easily rivaling its silver screen peers.

While I've not watched the show in its entirety, I've seen a couple episodes to get the gist. And it's exactly where I'd expect it to be; a "comic book" show and nothing more.

When shows which have grade-A writing, directing, and acting are out there (see True Detective), I wince a little when fans bring up a CW show as being anywhere near the same level. But that's just me.

I agree completely, that's why I said comic book show because it would co-exist with comic book movies. It's no where near close to the level a show like True Detective is and I didn't think I came off as saying so, at least I wasn't trying to. I also don't think it necessarily has to be on that high of level either because it is a comic book/superhero show. But IMO it's only improved in quality, especially for what it has to work with. And let's face it, it's not like Arrow has to try and be on a True Detective level to co-exist in this DC movie-verse. It's not like the show has to keep up on the same writing level as Oscar films, at least so far.

But anyways, the main point I was trying to make is that Stephen Amell would be the only one to need to be in any of the movies and he's proven to me that he'd be just fine. None of this even matters anyway because we don't have single clue what WB's plans are and who they want to use in the DCCU.

 

[113]

Sounds interesting but I'm not sure it goes with his output target as they may as well just do JL films then. This sounds like the same thing with 3 or 4 JL members stripped out from each film. He says DC/WB can release at most 1 film a year, more likely one every 2 years. If you combine all that, the members outside of the big 5 like Cyborg could go a long time (6 years if he skips 2 films in a row) without being in a film at all. Could be difficult with contracts and retaining the same actors, especially if they have no hope of getting a solo film at any point.

Well remember what Kalmart told us about the reason for the delay. He said the film was delayed because WB has been having to lock up and juggle multiple long-term contracts with a bunch of actors and trying to work out schedules. That info would fit right in line with the SixOkay article speculation. It would indeed be a complicated mess planning out films like that, but I think it would be brilliant and really differentiate the DCCU from how Marvel has set up their universe.

 

[BvS117]

What exactly is so bad about Arrow? The production value and acting are fine for network television. It's much easier to get good performances and effects for movies because time allows for more takes. There's a big differences in the level of flexibility. To get 45 minutes of footage, a production company typically has about 2 weeks for television. For a full length movie, they would have close to two months (for bigger budget movies). Too many people don't understand this.

I really enjoy Arrow. But here are some problems with the show for me:


The acting at points is really sub par. Black Canary, Roy, Deadshot, The Huntress, are particularly bad.

The writing is really dodgy sometimes. Drama seems to be artificially created and forced into the storyline to add some excitement to characters. The whole Roy story arc is really sub par, Laurel's alcoholism/drug addiction arc, the constant forced drama between Oliver and his sister and his mother, all of these aspects to me are poorly written/forced.

The cinematography on the show is really dodgy some times as well. Smallville had the same problem for me and it made a lot of sense when I saw the two shows used the same cinematographer.

 

[Lighthouse]

My number one problem with Arrow.

"It's all my fault."

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP! THAT PLOT POINT IS INSANELY ANNOYING!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jekecy]

I was referring to A-list acting talent of which Cavill, Affleck, and Amy Adams are all apart of. I'm not comparing a CBM to Oscar nominated films, of course not. I'm simply saying if you compare the acting talent in Man of Steel or TDK, to Arrow or Smallville it's not even close. Again, we're talking about the difference between A-list acting talent and B-list acting talent. That's not to say a B-list actor can never become A-list and visa versa (it does happen). But there is a reason none of the Smallville cast went on to have big, successful, Hollywood careers.

Amy Adams was a part of Smallville.

I agree completely, that's why I said comic book show because it would co-exist with comic book movies. It's no where near close to the level a show like True Detective is and I didn't think I came off as saying so, at least I wasn't trying to. I also don't think it necessarily has to be on that high of level either because it is a comic book/superhero show. But IMO it's only improved in quality, especially for what it has to work with. And let's face it, it's not like Arrow has to try and be on a True Detective level to co-exist in this DC movie-verse. It's not like the show has to keep up on the same writing level as Oscar films, at least so far.

See, my problem is boxing in any genre to a particular quality. I'm simply not of that belief. I think the only thing that would sway direction is the target demographic (adults vs. children), but past that, there's no reason why a "comic book" show shouldn't have the the level of complexity and talent a "mystery" show may possess.

 

[shauner111]

What exactly is so bad about Arrow? The production value and acting are fine for network television. It's much easier to get good performances and effects for movies because time allows for more takes. There's a big differences in the level of flexibility. To get 45 minutes of footage, a production company typically has about 2 weeks for television. For a full length movie, they would have close to two months (for bigger budget movies). Too many people don't understand this.

The acting for the most part is not very good. Some of it is fine for network television sure. But some of it is definitely below mediocre. Yes, i mean bad.

Regardless of the amount of time, it means nothing when you sit down to watch a show. Deliver well or don't. When im watching a show, i dont care if the actor didnt have enough time, i wanna see a solid performance, i dont want to be distracted. Some of these actors are then thrown into a film and they're just as bad, so sometimes it means nothing.

I was referring to A-list acting talent of which Cavill, Affleck, and Amy Adams are all apart of. I'm not comparing a CBM to Oscar nominated films, of course not. I'm simply saying if you compare the acting talent in Man of Steel or TDK, to Arrow or Smallville it's not even close. Again, we're talking about the difference between A-list acting talent and B-list acting talent. That's not to say a B-list actor can never become A-list and visa versa (it does happen). But there is a reason none of the Smallville cast went on to have big, successful, Hollywood careers.

Please, dont say that Cavill is an A-List actor. Not right now he isn't.

 

[113]

My number one problem with Arrow.

"It's all my fault."

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP! THAT PLOT POINT IS INSANELY ANNOYING!!!!!!!!!!

LOL I completely agree. Or, the old comic trope "i have to keep my secret from my family to protect them." They seriously have the same conversation at least twice per episode.

 

[113]

Amy Adams was a part of Smallville.

And how long did it take her to refine her craft before she started breaking out in Hollywood?

 

[DChero]

Exactly, it's fine for where it's at. But I'm not yet convinced its deserving of an upgrade to stand toe to toe on a Hollywood level. This isn't just a matter of resources. If you could link to specific scenes or episodes which show otherwise I'd be open to check it out.

I wouldn't expect any kind of upgrade. I know what you mean in that it would get a viewing bump and have to live up to that, but its doing fine by itself and hasn't impeded on any major DC continuity. For its target audience, I consider it a big success. I'd suggest sucking it up until the second season. Once they broke the "origin" stories, the world has really evolved. It's pretty much the same deal as most superhero movies... bu tin a good way, heh.

Please keep arrow separated even lemire green arrow is separated..t:t:

This guy.

I really enjoy Arrow. But here are some problems with the show for me:


The acting at points is really sub par. Black Canary, Roy, Deadshot, The Huntress, are particularly bad.

The writing is really dodgy sometimes. Drama seems to be artificially created and forced into the storyline to add some excitement to characters. The whole Roy story arc is really sub par, Laurel's alcoholism/drug addiction arc, the constant forced drama between Oliver and his sister and his mother, all of these aspects to me are poorly written/forced.

The cinematography on the show is really dodgy some times as well. Smallville had the same problem for me and it made a lot of sense when I saw the two shows used the same cinematographer.

I agree with you on the Roy storyline. I haven't really been on board with how he's being introduced into the 'superhero' world. I will say that it's one of few weak points.

I don't see why people try to call out acting so much. Television shows rotate writers and directors all of the time. I think that they do a great job of mitigating the differences of styles. This is another thing that is rarely an issue in movies because they typically don't have to deal with more than two production crews. Most don't even have two.

Most of what I've read leads me to believe that it's not the show Arrow that people are concerned with, it's linking the DCMU to a television show in general.

 

[MrsKent26]

See, my problem is boxing in any genre to a particular quality. I'm simply not of that belief. I think the only thing that would sway direction is the target demographic (adults vs. children), but past that, there's no reason why a "comic book" show shouldn't have the the level of complexity and talent a "mystery" show may possess.

I agree with this and think it applies to movies too. Why can't a CBM have the same quality of writing that a successful drama might have? I don't believe in genre dictating quality.

Please, dont say that Cavill is an A-List actor. Not right now he isn't.

I don't know what "list" I'd put Cavill on, but he seems to be decently popular as Superman at least. He's even won a couple minor awards, one of them being an MTV award. While those aren't that prestigious, that at least indicates he's fairly well-known.

 

[DChero]

The acting for the most part is not very good. Some of it is fine for network television sure. But some of it is definitely below mediocre. Yes, i mean bad.

Regardless of the amount of time, it means nothing when you sit down to watch a show. Deliver well or don't. When im watching a show, i dont care if the actor didnt have enough time, i wanna see a solid performance, i dont want to be distracted. Some of these actors are then thrown into a film and they're just as bad, so sometimes it means nothing.

If you're talking about there being a consistent pattern, I strongly disagree. You had mentioned that you had dropped the show before Man of Steel came out. Did you pick it up again?

 

[BvS117]

Most of what I've read leads me to believe that it's not the show Arrow that people are concerned with, it's linking the DCMU to a television show in general.

I'm one of them. For me it's all about constriting the show and the films ability to be creatively free. Arrow has Deathstroke, Deadshot, as well as the presence of Ra's Al Ghul all in the show already.

So what if in the future for some solo Batman film the team want's to use Deadshot, or Ra's Al Ghul as the main villan? Would they have to use Manu Bennett? Or what if Arrow kills Deathstroke at the end of season 2? Is that character than dead in the movie universe and no longer usable?
As for Ra's Al Ghul, what happens if for the movie universe they cast someone like Jon Hamm, or Viggo Mortensen, Ralph Fiennes, or Jason Issacs? I doubt any of those actors would have any interest in doing some limited arc on Arrow. And if any of those actors were cast would Arrow than kill off their Ra's Al Ghul storyline?

In my eyes, merging the two universes just limits creative freedom.

 

[Rock Sexton]

I'm curious to see how this all works with all these new parts being announced, especially since it's supposed to be a Batman/Superman movie .... because obviously it can't be so simple as "Oh hey guys I'm Cyborg! Oh hey I'm Wonder Woman!" etc, etc ..... and then the film goes on its merry way.

I wonder if they're going to be working on a more elaborate post-cred scene.

 

[Jekecy]

I'm one of them. For me it's all about constriting the show and the films ability to be creatively free. Arrow has Deathstroke, Deadshot, as well as the presence of Ra's Al Ghul all in the show already.

So what if in the future for some solo Batman film the team want's to use Deadshot, or Ra's Al Ghul as the main villan? Would they have to use Manu Bennett? Or what if Arrow kills Deathstroke at the end of season 2? Is that character than dead in the movie universe and no longer usable?
As for Ra's Al Ghul, what happens if for the movie universe they cast someone like Jon Hamm, or Viggo Mortensen, or Jason Issacs? I doubt any of those actors would have any interest in doing some limited arc on Arrow. And if any of those actors were cast would Arrow than kill off their Ra's Al Ghul storyline?

In my eyes, merging the two universes just limits creative freedom.

Yep, above all else this is what's most problematic in the long run. They could have made it work when the show was in its infancy, but it's too far along now.

Had the DCU been planned years ahead in both tv/movies, I'd be thrilled with that prospect. But currently it seems as if they didn't get their priorities straight until very recently. All future plans should stem from what the MOS team have created, not before.

 

[CK_ALL_DAY]

Again, another reason why Arrow suffers is because it has 20+ episodes a season. I can't name many shows that the majority of people consider to be high quality shows having that many episodes. In fact I wouldn't mind some suggestion of shows that have that many episodes that are considered to be high quality because I probably need to watch them. But in my viewing experience, the shows with 8-13 episodes a season tend to be higher quality shows. (True Detective, Breaking Bad, The Wire, The Sopranos, Mad Men, ect.)

 

[113]

I'm one of them. For me it's all about constriting the show and the films ability to be creatively free. Arrow has Deathstroke, Deadshot, as well as the presence of Ra's Al Ghul all in the show already.

So what if in the future for some solo Batman film the team want's to use Deadshot, or Ra's Al Ghul as the main villan? Would they have to use Manu Bennett? Or what if Arrow kills Deathstroke at the end of season 2? Is that character than dead in the movie universe and no longer usable?
As for Ra's Al Ghul, what happens if for the movie universe they cast someone like Jon Hamm, or Viggo Mortensen, Ralph Fiennes, or Jason Issacs? I doubt any of those actors would have any interest in doing some limited arc on Arrow. And if any of those actors were cast would Arrow than kill off their Ra's Al Ghul storyline?

In my eyes, merging the two universes just limits creative freedom.

Yep, completely agree with this as well. It limits creative freedom on both sides - the writers and producers on Arrow, and the writers and producers in the DCCU.

 

[BvS117]

Again, another reason why Arrow suffers is because it has 20+ episodes a season. I can't name many shows that the majority of people consider to be high quality shows having that many episodes. In fact I wouldn't mind some suggestion of shows that have that many episodes that are considered to be high quality because I probably need to watch them. But in my viewing experience, the shows with 8-13 episodes a season tend to be higher quality shows. (True Detective, Breaking Bad, The Wire, The Sopranos, Mad Men, ect.)

The West Wing comes to mind.