Well that was a very comprehensive reply. I don't often break down people's posts to reply to them - and I'm not trying to be disrespectful by doing it here. I just think you raised a lot of good ideas, and to reply to them properly, a point-by-point approach is probably optimal.
I'm not asking for WAR AND PEACE BM. Let's put it this way... I'm at least expecting a live action super hero show to reach, let's say, STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION levels of writing. While I love Trek, no one is going to confuse TNG with BREAKING BAD or GAME OF THRONES. It's good but good within the context of the genre work of it's day.
But what did a show like TNG do? It balanced out humor with action, with thought provoking ideas with good consistent characterization and well written dialog, and, oh yeah, SFX and action each week too boot. All in an all ages show that was never too light nor too dark. Every character had a certain inherent dignity but are also still entertaining with a unique and well defined voice. Rarely if ever were these characters written to be fools for the sake of the weekly plot. And remember, TNG took some time to get good, so rough goings are to be expected... But what's going on with these shows is a bit ridiculous and they have been around for a while now.
Yeah, I was a big fan of TNG, and while there are a lot of absolutely great episodes ( "Chain of Command" "Tapestry" "Sins of the Father" etc) there are some pretty awful ones too. And that series benefited from having a lead who was legitimately a great actor (nobody in CW can make that claim) which is probably why we gloss over some of the crap. TNG didn't really hit its stride until the 3rd season (which I maintain was the best), the first 2 seasons having a lot of cringeworthy episodes (especially season 1) !
And of course TNG had its share of "mystery malfunction" episodes (usually the holodecks breaking down - which happened so often as a plot device that in DS9 O'Brien makes a crack about it). Those episodes were really just filler to pad out the season, and many of them were pretty terrible.
I would say that during its 'Dominion War" run, DS9 was a lot closer to the Game of Thrones of Star Trek - of course its really impossible to compare the two, as all the ST shows were of a different era and aimed at a different audience (and of course that kind of sex and violence, and the combination of both could not be done on network tv).
As a point of distinction (between Trek and Superhero shows) is that as ST has always tried to at least look like legit Sci-fi (and in DS9 and TNG's case an exploration of moral questions) there's a lot more intellectual engagement - compared to superhero shows which aren't so aimed at the mind, but rather the heart and occasionally the soul.
I guess what I'm saying is that they're very different in terms of genre and that the superhero genre has some inherent limits (the main one being that people putting on spandex to go and solve the world's problem is an inherently silly idea). Still, you're right that the whole standard of writing could certainly improve - they should hire Chris Claremont or John Byrne,now those guys could put together a superhero story with great characters and a story that was sufficiently complex (but not too complex) and really engaging.
I can respect a fan like your's voicing his support for the shows and admitting to the weaknesses at least. You aren't trying to make them out to be anymore than what they are. But they could be so much more, which again, isn't saying I want them to be THE SOPRANOS or something.
That said... Well there already are so very many stupid and silly "turn you mind off" types of entertainment out there. Why would I WANT that to be what DC series are (and frankly I include AGENTS OF SHIELD in the same category)? Why would I want these shows to essentially be live action cartoons with less actual depth than most modern action animated shows?
And I think you misunderstand my points about consistency ( about either character or powers). It's not about obeying the laws of physics. It's about obeying what the writers themselves have laid out before, which tends to showcase essentially a lazy thought process on their part and undermine the characters and the situations they are in. Let's take the first episode of the crossover as a for instance. We have three seasons now of growth supposedly for Barry. Growth in experience and growth in powers. How many times has Barry been presented to the audience as having gained even more speed than when he started? How many times have we been flat out told that Barry has much more mastery over his power than ever before? Yet... He still get's caught literally flat footed all the time. An alien space craft lands and Barry essentially just let the aliens run free. Strong or not, Barry SHOULD at this point been able to round them all up with no problem. Is that what the writers have their main character do? No. He stands there, THE FASTEST MAN ALIVE, and does nothing.
Yeah, there are a lot of "turn your brain off" shows out there - most of them involving Real Housewives. But we like superheroes so that's our poison.
To be honest writing inconsistency drives me nuts too - in fact at least once every Flash episode when he's caught flat footed, I grumble about it (I mean, the world is in slo-mo to him, so why does he get nailed so often ? And don't get me started on Time Travel because the Flash writers have irrevocably screwed that one up). I mean, Alchemy zapped Barry, who last season got so fast he kicked the **** out of both the Reverse Flash, and ultimately Zoom.
And Barry's ability to vibrate through solid matter seems to disappear and appear only when it's plot convenient.
Similarly, I refuse to watch Superman Returns (again) because I can't reconcile Superman, a being with Super senses (including telescopic X-ray vision) and the son of the greatest scientist of a super-advanced race landing on an island largely composed of the one substance in the universe that can kill him, and then looking surprised when he gets his ass kicked and is shanked and left to drown.
I mean, the island was built using technology stolen from Superman, and created by the only person who has ever possessed or used kryptonite - and Superman isn't a bit cautious. That drives me absolutely bat-**** crazy, it's not inconsistency, just stupidity.
So I get it. I suppose I can gloss over that stuff in the CW shows because they balance the garbage with some legitimately good character moments and a lot of fun. (and again, I have low expectations)
Now BM... in the past you claimed as a child to have been critical of the ending of SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE. And my point for bringing that up is that as kids, we fanboys even then could understand certain inconsistent elements in the writing of things. I'm telling you right now if I were a ten year old I would call bovine excrement on THE FLASH for having the character billed as the fastest human alive just stand there as a horde of aliens walk by him. I wouldn't have accepted this as a child is my point. It undermines so many things about the character. But that's it... The writers don't care about that at all. Supposedly brilliant scientists show not a lick of commons sense all the time. Well... then they aren't "brilliant". They are pretty much intelligent fools and they do this constantly. This is in it's way WORSE than a film. In a film the characters may do something that is stupid, but rectify said decision to save the day before the credits roll... But it's a one or two time deal in the course of 120 minutes. These shows have many, MANY hours of this by now. These characters on multiple levels keep making the same mistakes.
I get that, see what I said above about Superman Returns. For Superman the movie, as you said, even as an eight year old I knew that flying really fast to turn back time was dumb - but I still love that movie, because the rest of it is so great, and Superman himself is such a likeable character.
In fact when I see the movie as an adult I get more and more impressed with Christopher Reeve's performance. For a while, I thought Henry Cavill was going to edge him out - but now I'm convinced Reeve was the best and may always be so. In fact Tyler Hoechlin was great as TV Superman, by channeling some Reeve (while in the costume) and altering, but not disregarding Reeve's take on Clark Kent.
As for Barry, I can get by all his stupid moments (and there are more than a few) because he has a lot of great moments too ( e.g. how he ultimately defeats Killer Frost, otherwise a pretty average episode but with that one great moment). Ollie makes tons of mistakes, sometimes repeating them, but he does his best to fix them - he's deeply flawed, and knows it- but that doesn't stop him being a likeable character.
But that repetition should be no surprise. After all Berlanti and crew are shameless in recycling just about everything from season long arcs to cast members. I love Tom C. in season one. He was a really good in his role... But there was no need to bring him back in season two and there was certainly no need to bring him back as a "humorous" version from another Earth (this is another quirk of these shows... Reusing actors in different roles. Why? Well it's a money thing but it's been done too often and it's really unnecessary). Which brings up another thing they recycle on each show. "Funny geeky" characters that flatter the fanboy viewers and play to what these writers think is our sense of humor by having all these pop culture spewing quippers. Maybe others find them appealing but as shown in this crossover they just make it seem like I'm watching an episode of Power Rangers. Humor is fine, but Jesus Christ it's a story where the fate of the world is at stake and the President of the U.S. was murdered. Maybe, just maybe, try and NOT undermine the stakes with the constant quips and fanboy flattery? And what's the incentive to keep watching when only you keep doing the same arcs again and again?
Yeah, it's true that there are a ton of generic elements in the shows, as you have said. ( In superhero stories there are a lot of generic elements, in fact since Flash's origin was retconned to involve his mother's death, which motivated him to help solve crimes well....). As for the stakes in that episode and the use of humour, well for me it worked - or at least better than the utterly joyless tone of B v S or just the rubbish of SS.
I agree though that the president did get offed and replaced pretty unceremoniously (really, I don't know why they bothered).
And that brings me to the claim that these characters have always been in cheesy, light hearted stuff that is always at it's base mere flights of fancy. Okay... Sure. But you and I are old enough to know that the comics of the 1930's to the 1970's are quite different than the comics of the late 70's to now. We have DECADES of the books being, well, better written than the entirety of these CW shows. I'm sorry, but no... I can't give the shows a free pass simply because they are derived from comics when I know comics in general can and are written at the level I initially described. They aren't all WATCHMEN level in complexity and they don't have to be, but they have been over the years competent, complex enough and don't insult my intelligence.
I'm not making apologies for the CW shows, but they do have to reach a wider audience than the comics. I think that comic books as a form of literature need a deeper level of complexity - as I hinted above, I used to love John Byrne 's work from the 80's as he and Chris Claremont built some great storylines and characters around the X-Men (and in Byrne's case, Superman).
Having said that, I find a lot of today's comic stories unnecessarily convoluted - so I suppose that good stories don't need to be overly complicated ( as the Batman v Superman writers totally failed to appreciate).
But you're right, these characters have been given much better service in their original comic forms - I'm not sure the same approach would work with the shows.
Also, different approaches work with different characters. In the 80's and 90's Denny O'Neill and other writers did amazing work with Batman - and he got great service from Scott Snyder in the 2000's. He's a character who seems to attract good writing, and about whom stories seem to naturally develop. However, the Flash is a very different character, and I've always felt that slightly cheesy was the tone that suited him best ( kind of went with that old Carmine Infantino artwork).
And I haven't even talked about the sub par actors that can bring down even the more consistently excellent performers in these shows, nor did I talk about the insipid dialog nor the forced dramas that are shown to be such since the resolutions happen so quickly as to have no weight at all. I'm not asking for Shakespeare brotha, but how is it in 2016 that a live action adaptation of super heroes has more in common with the Hercules/Xena shows of the 1990's than the BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES of the same period? Can you see where I am coming from BM?
That's fair BM:TAS was great entertainment - but I did enjoy Hercules and Xena ( they haven't dated that well though, you seem them today and they look very mid-early 90s). Having said that, the Flash (1991) is pretty terrible by the standards of the current show - I do think that today's shows will date a little better.
I do think that BM:TAS has a similar sense of whimsy to the CW shows (particularly Arrow). And yes, the drama can be a bit forced but I do think that's more to do with the genre itself ( I mean, an alien invasion is a pretty forced event).
Also... Allow my to address a personal elephant in the room. Lots of people online and as part of these very forums praise these shows to high heaven and equally dismiss the DCEU films so far. That's fine. No one is going to always agree. But it's interesting that these shows get a pass for all the flaws I enumerated and the DCEU films get raked over the coals when to my mind just on basic competency alone those films outshine these shows by several magnitudes. Sure, there has to be a sliding scale given the differences of budget but even factoring that in, personally, I find the opinions of some suspect if they praise these shows but find nothing but flaws in nearly every single element of the DCEU films. I mean... The one thing people claim they REALLY love about these shows, the action, powers and costumes, the films completely blow out of the water and then add in the better dialog and caliber of acting. The films give you the Trinity fighting Doomsday in a mega action sequence and it's nothing but nitpicks and negative attitude. The shows give us five minutes of mildly competent CGI for King Shark/Grodd and it's all 'OMFG!!! This is the best thing ever!" It's baffling as hell to me.
Yeah, I wasn't a huge fan of King Shark, and I thought that Grodd being able to catch Barry's punch was just ridiculous.
With Batman v Superman, I think the problem with the final battle against Doomsday is the two hours of **** you need to sit through in order to get there. While in transit from London to Singapore I watched the last 45 minutes of B v S and it wasn't bad. When I first saw it in the cinema I was numb by the time Supes died, so I was just glad the film was over.
The films do have better actors and better effects, but the story and characterisations are terrible. While Batman was one of the only good things about B v S, I feel like Ollie Queen is a much better character (at least one with more balance of dark and light, and is possibly smarter ! I mean, Ollie has killed a lot of people, far more than Batman does in B v S, but at least he's upfront about it and deals with the guilt. Admittedly, he's had five seasons to get there.
Wonder Woman probably does the best in B v S, as she really just gets an extended cameo - I think if the WW film turns out to be good, then the CW shows will start to look a bit weak in comparison.
You describe the drama as forced and the dialog insipid - well, to be honest I found those to be even more applicable to B v S (where the central characters conflict makes little sense, and its resolution makes even less sense) and even moreso to Suicide Squad.
To me, the superior action sequences didn't save the films (well Suicide Squad doesn't have particularly good action sequences) and why I prefer the CW shows is because I actually care about the characters. They aren't perfect but they're much better developed and likeable than any DC big screen hero we've seen since Christian Bale put down the cowl.
For me, likeable characters can actually save an otherwise generic show/film.
Have you seen Dr Strange ? It's fantastic. I mean, if you break down the elements of the plot (as opposed to the specfics) it is an incredibly generic superhero origin film (pretty much Iron Man with magic). However, it is saved by some stellar performances, a couple of great characters (a combination of the actors' skills and good writing) -and of course mind-blowing special effects. If it just had the special effects, without the performances and had poorly written and developed characters (other than Kaecillius, who was a generic villain), well it would have been a Michael Bay film.
Seeing the Trinity together for the first time live-action was great, but they get no time to interact or develop any chemistry - unlike Barry and Ollie who are the best CW pairing, or Barry and Kara who are dorky but likeable.
It was almost like Snyder had no idea how to make the Trinity interact in a relatable and engaging way, so he covered it up with lots of explosions and fisticuffs. Yes, the CW shows throw in cheesy quips, but their character interactions are better IMO, well at least better than the current DC movies.
I thought that the Smallville battle in Man of Steel still sets the standard for live action superhero fights, because it's less chaotic than the fights in B v S.
Cavill actually sells it without actually saying more than a couple of lines, he just looks the part and reacts to the action in a way that makes sense to us as an audience. I felt like Snyder criminally robbed Cavill of a great Superman moment, when he blows up the Capitol before giving Supes a chance to speak. Ugh. Cavill is a good actor, but even he can't make caviar out of the cow-**** story and characterisation he has to work with.
You are right that the CW shows are flawed, and they seem to get a pass for a lot of flaws that they share with the recent DCEU films. However, IMO they do have some merits that the films lack (likeable and developed characters being the main one) which explains that pass. I think if we weigh up the good and bad in these shows vs the good and bad of the current films, well the shows' good outweighs the bad by a reasonable margin. But of course,
this is just my opinion.
And hey, what's great about SHH is that it's big enough for both our opinions. The fact that we can utterly disagree but discuss them in a civilized way is terrific. Cheers.
