Arrow Arrow General Discussion Thread - - Part 16

Status
Not open for further replies.
Right, but of course, there's a counter-argument to that notion as well. Again, apples and oranges.

I don't think there's a counter argument to time when you are talking action and effects, time is key in those areas. If Amell had just said it's harder to make 23 eps of TV than a film then I'd say you're right that he may be wrong, but in this genre he's right IMO, especially when they are expected to create a new threat most weeks while also juggling an overarching plot and a couple of action sequences.
 
I don't think there's a counter argument to time when you are talking action and effects, time is key in those areas. If Amell had just said it's harder to make 23 eps of TV than a film then I'd say you're right that he may be wrong, but in this genre he's right IMO, especially when they are expected to create a new threat most weeks while also juggling an overarching plot and a couple of action sequences.

There is a counter-argument for time because, although time is key for action and effects, not as much time is needed for what these TV shows are trying to accomplish.

No one is expecting that Arrow and The Flash have the same quality of VFX that a film like BvS or The Avengers will have. Would anyone expect that cell phone video game graphics should rival the graphics of PS4 games? Of course not, because we're talking about 2 completely different media platforms that are not in direct competition with one another. Therefore, the amount of time needed to accomplish certain things is a direct reflection of the needs, goals, viewing of a specific production.


The Flash has some of the best effects on network television right now, so I'd say they are doing a great job of managing their time when it comes to their production and VFX work. In truth, they obviously don't need close to the amount of production or post-production time that a major motion picture does, where weeks or months are spent completing the VFX of just one specific action sequence that has to be absolutely perfect. And even after shoveling tens of millions of dollars and spending months on VFX, they'll still be bashed if they aren't up to par (ahem..Green Lantern).


One could also argue that the filming processes are significantly more complicated for blockbuster movies than they are for action TV shows, but there's no need to go far. Good film and TV productions work like well-oiled machines, but in their own ways and within their own constraints. And to be fair, if a TV production crew is having a hard time meeting deadlines or completing episodes because of action sequences, it's probably not a show that deserves to be on televison -- or they need a new crew.

So far, I haven't seen The Flash's showrunners complaining about their lack of time or that it's tougher to do what they're doing than it is take make superhero movies, so I'm not sure why Amell is.
 
There is a counter-argument for time because, although time is key for action and effects, not as much time is needed for what these TV shows are trying to accomplish.

No one is expecting that Arrow and The Flash have the same quality of VFX that a film like BvS or The Avengers will have. Would anyone expect that cell phone video game graphics should rival the graphics of PS4 games? Of course not, because we're talking about 2 completely different media platforms that are not in direct competition with one another. Therefore, the amount of time needed to accomplish certain things is a direct reflection of the needs, goals, viewing of a specific production.


The Flash has some of the best effects on network television right now, so I'd say they are doing a great job of managing their time when it comes to their production and VFX work. In truth, they obviously don't need close to the amount of production or post-production time that a major motion picture does, where weeks or months are spent completing the VFX of just one specific action sequence that has to be absolutely perfect. And even after shoveling tens of millions of dollars and spending months on VFX, they'll still be bashed if they aren't up to par (ahem..Green Lantern).


One could also argue that the filming processes are significantly more complicated for blockbuster movies than they are for action TV shows, but there's no need to go far. Good film and TV productions work like well-oiled machines, but in their own ways and within their own constraints. And to be fair, if a TV production crew is having a hard time meeting deadlines or completing episodes because of action sequences, it's probably not a show that deserves to be on televison -- or they need a new crew.

So far, I haven't seen The Flash's showrunners complaining about their lack of time or that it's tougher to do what they're doing than it is take make superhero movies, so I'm not sure why Amell is.

I think there is an expectation these days though, right across the spectrum fans expect a higher quality to what they see, where as before many would excuse TV for under par effects and action. Look at AoS, it took a lot of stick early on for poor fight scenes and effects.

The thing is movie budgets have gotten bigger and bigger over the last decade, TV budgets haven't, yet people expect the same contextual increase in the quality of action and effects. Another thing to consider is that unlike with a movie you can't suddenly push back the drop date, if you aren't ready on time you are screwed.

I doubt Amell made his comments lightly, he does work in the industry and I am sure knows a lot more than either of us as to what the process takes in fairness. I also didn't see it as him complaining, just simply stating his opinion based on his experience first hand. As for the crews not complaining, no one wants to lose their job, in this situation you rely on the guy with the safety net in the production to be the voice for the show as he's not going to be fired.
 
Well, at least he knows how Justin Hartley feels, right?
 
I think there is an expectation these days though, right across the spectrum fans expect a higher quality to what they see, where as before many would excuse TV for under par effects and action. Look at AoS, it took a lot of stick early on for poor fight scenes and effects.

TV effects have improved just as film effects have, though not as rapidly. Of course, there are expectations with any line of work. Criticisms fly all you from all directions in the entertainment business, whether it's in TV or film. You cite criticism of AoS's VFX, but we can also cite criticims of the VFX in dozens of recent films. Expectations have risen in each medium when it comes to VFX, but not to the point that most people are expecting television VFX to be completely on par with the film VFX.

Planning, staging, framing, and creativity are key in TV action sequences -- just as they are for film. I think the people involved with The Flash's VFX (along with Arrow to a similar extent) have excelled so far in what they've been able to accomplish. Are there shoddy moments? Sure, but a hell of a lot less of them than most of us expected there would be.


The thing is movie budgets have gotten bigger and bigger over the last decade, TV budgets haven't, yet people expect the same contextual increase in the quality of action and effects. Another thing to consider is that unlike with a movie you can't suddenly push back the drop date, if you aren't ready on time you are screwed.

What people? What are you basing that statement on?

And again, we're still comparing apples to oranges here, and we can go back and forth on this subject all day. Pushing back film release dates isn't the most common occurence in the industry, but you're comparing two different platforms that (once again) have different goals, production cycles, and marketing/business strategies. While a movie can be shelved due to production problems or pushed back because of delays or production changes, a TV show can easily be cancelled or showrunners and creative teams can be dropped or replaced (which happes often these days). Budgets can be cut or added to.

This discussion doesn't boil down to something as simple as "Well, movies can do this and TV shows can't so Amell's right and you're wrong." My original point was that there are counterpoints to be made if you look at this objectively, you can see it from both side and not declaratively state that it's harder to do one or the other. Not once have I suggested that what Amell and the CW are doing is easier than what someone like Zack Snyder is doing with BvS. I just regonize that there's more than one way to look it at and because there are SO many different variables and factors between the two platforms, there isn't a clear comparison to be made.

I doubt Amell made his comments lightly, he does work in the industry and I am sure knows a lot more than either of us as to what the process takes in fairness. I also didn't see it as him complaining, just simply stating his opinion based on his experience first hand.

Actually, in fairness, Amell has never starred in a big bugdet action/superhero movie. In fact, I don't think he's ever been involved with ANY big budget Hollywood film. When he has the chance to star as Green Arrow in a feature film where he'd have months of pre-production and training, then shooting nearly non-stop for several months or longer and getting involved in the post-production work that's required of him before embarking on a 2-3 month press tour around the world -- all while he has a chance to see what it takes to make a feature superhero film --I think he'll be able to look at this a little more objectively and with less of a bias than he surely and rightfully has now.


As for the crews not complaining, no one wants to lose their job, in this situation you rely on the guy with the safety net in the production to be the voice for the show as he's not going to be fired.

They're also not complaing because, ya know, they're professionals who are good at their jobs and can handle the work loads they've taken on. Making movies is hard work. Making a TV series is hard work. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.
 
TV effects have improved just as film effects have, though not as rapidly. Of course, there are expectations with any line of work. Criticisms fly all you from all directions in the entertainment business, whether it's in TV or film. You cite criticism of AoS's VFX, but we can also cite criticims of the VFX in dozens of recent films. Expectations have risen in each medium when it comes to VFX, but not to the point that most people are expecting television VFX to be completely on par with the film VFX.

Planning, staging, framing, and creativity are key in TV action sequences -- just as they are for film. I think the people involved with The Flash's VFX (along with Arrow to a similar extent) have excelled so far in what they've been able to accomplish. Are there shoddy moments? Sure, but a hell of a lot less of them than most of us expected there would be.

I don't think we are in disagreement here as regards how to get your action right, it's always a case of knowing what you can and can't do and how to present it in a way that protects your limitations and accentuates your strengths, whatever they may be.


What people? What are you basing that statement on?

And again, we're still comparing apples to oranges here, and we can go back and forth on this subject all day. Pushing back film release dates isn't the most common occurence in the industry, but you're comparing two different platforms that (once again) have different goals, production cycles, and marketing/business strategies. While a movie can be shelved due to production problems or pushed back because of delays or production changes, a TV show can easily be cancelled or showrunners and creative teams can be dropped or replaced (which happes often these days). Budgets can be cut or added to.

This discussion doesn't boil down to something as simple as "Well, movies can do this and TV shows can't so Amell's right and you're wrong." My original point was that there are counterpoints to be made if you look at this objectively, you can see it from both side and not declaratively state that it's harder to do one or the other. Not once have I suggested that what Amell and the CW are doing is easier than what someone like Zack Snyder is doing with BvS. I just regonize that there's more than one way to look it at and because there are SO many different variables and factors between the two platforms, there isn't a clear comparison to be made.
I'm basing it off my time on here over the last decade and conversations with friends offline, I simply see much more expected from TV than there was a decade ago, but the budgets have not increased to match these expectations, nor has the time frame in which to refine what is filmed.

As for the other points, it simply boils down to views, I happen to agree with Amell as regards this genre and have listened to your counterpoints, I just know if I was asked which arena I'd rather risk my career in on making an action based product, it would be movies every time as I feel there are simply bigger advantages and less drawbacks.

Actually, in fairness, Amell has never starred in a big bugdet action/superhero movie. In fact, I don't think he's ever been involved with ANY big budget Hollywood film. When he has the chance to star as Green Arrow in a feature film where he'd have months of pre-production and training, then shooting nearly non-stop for several months or longer and getting involved in the post-production work that's required of him before embarking on a 2-3 month press tour around the world -- all while he has a chance to see what it takes to make a feature superhero film --I think he'll be able to look at this a little more objectively and with less of a bias than he surely and rightfully has now.
What I meant was he is in the industry, we are not. I am sure he is much more knowledgeable on the pros and cons than we are as he mixes in that world and he's hardly the first to say TV is tougher.

They're also not complaing because, ya know, they're professionals who are good at their jobs and can handle the work loads they've taken on. Making movies is hard work. Making a TV series is hard work. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Well you are only guessing as to why they aren't saying anything, all I did was answer why they wouldn't and Amell would, even though he didn't complain, he simply gave his view on the subject.
 
Last edited:
tumblr_nf79csI1251u1axvbo2_1280.jpg
tumblr_nf79csI1251u1axvbo1_1280.jpg




please don't tell someone is getting the Lian Harper treatment:csad::csad:
 
*googles the meaning* doubt they'd go down that route, but I can see Lyla meeting her maker.
 
That is such an awkward cover to me. I'm guessing they didn't host an actual photoshoot for them and just used stock pics.
 
It looks like they took outtakes from the Arrow and Flash Comic Con covers and put them together.
 
You guys are such drama queens. :o
 
It is a little awkward, but also kind of...cute, for lack of a better word. Oliver's trying to be serious and Barry is all like, "Hey...hey bro...I'm in your space. How you gonna act?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,296
Messages
22,081,896
Members
45,881
Latest member
lucindaschatz
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"