Arrow The Barry Allen/The Flash Thread - Part 1

[Boy Scout]

Reading through these last few pages, all I can say is wow.

 

[Savage]

There is nothing wrong with wanting live action comic book characters to look like their comic book counterparts. A comic book movie is an adaptation of a visual medium, naturally the filmmaker should strive to make his product visually similar to the source material.

That being said, I'm fine with a black Wally West. But I firmly believe that any live action DC characters should aim to look similar to the source material and I'd prefer a ginger Wally. Just because I prefer them to stick to the original look that I've become accustomed to.

Still though, a black Wally is a welcome change and it doesn't bother me. If Wally's eventual Kid Flash suit is badass and the characterization is on point then I'll have no complaints.

And I definitely agree. I'd honestly be more offended if Wally looked just like he did on Young Justice and yet acted nothing like himself. That stuff I find more irritating than a different visual representation.

 

[cleverusername8]

My personal opinion on Wally being black: It's not Wally being made black that's the issue, but the reason behind Wally being made black.

If they get a black actor for the part because he was absolutely the best actor they could find for the part, so be it. However, the reports are saying they are specifically looking for a black actor. Altering a character's ethnicity just for the sake of political and social relevance never works and comes off as disrespectful.

Why did Perry White's casting work? Because they got a perfect actor for the part that just happened to be black. Why did Harvey Dent's casting work? Because they got a perfect actor for the part that just happened to be blonde instead of black-haired.

You hit the nail on the head with this one.

However, back to the hair color thing, I don't see it as an issue because of what Shikamaru said here. If they went out of their way and said "Ok, let's find a blonde guy to play Superman because that'd be different and fun" I'd want them to hold their horses a bit. But if they got a blonde actor to play Superman because he killed it in the auditions or looked really good in the costume while retaining his natural hair color? Go for it! I wouldn't boycott the movie over a detail that small.

But again, if they're doing it on purpose just for the sake of it, that's a little dumb.

On a side note, have they even confirmed the reports that Iris will be cast black? That image could have easily been fake. Is Wally confirmed for the series or are we still speculating?

 

[BatsDC]

Just because Iris is black doesn't mean Wally will be as well... Backstories can be changed

 

[mkilban2]

Wow I'm mad I even caught up on this forum lol. Black Wally West or Johnny Storm or Heimdall or Batman or James Bond whomever does not bother me at all of they're the best for the part. Or any other race for that matter. Changing of skin color or hair color doesn't change the character itself.

If an openly homosexual actor was playing Superman would that be wrong? No because that doesn't change the story of Superman being with Lois Lane, just as Wally being black doesnt change him being a dude who runs fast.

I honestly wouldn't even be mad if they made superman or batman gay in the movies themselves, it doesn't sour the character at all.

Ill end this with the fact that I'm not a comic reader and haven't read these characters for years and years but I'm open to different adaptations of things.

 

[S. Grundy]

Wow I'm mad I even caught up on this forum lol. Black Wally West or Johnny Storm or Heimdall or Batman or James Bond whomever does not bother me at all of they're the best for the part. Or any other race for that matter. Changing of skin color or hair color doesn't change the character itself.

If an openly homosexual actor was playing Superman would that be wrong? No because that doesn't change the story of Superman being with Lois Lane, just as Wally being black doesnt change him being a dude who runs fast.

I honestly wouldn't even be mad if they made superman or batman gay in the movies themselves, it doesn't sour the character at all.

Ill end this with the fact that I'm not a comic reader and haven't read these characters for years and years but I'm open to different adaptations of things.

Take Manu Bennett, he's Māori, Slade Wilson isn't Māori, and people have no problem with him in the role. Hell, he pretty much has universal praise on these boards.

 

[Alien Anal]

I dont follow Arrow so im just wondering with The Flash being introduced does he have powers and is he getting his traditional suit?

 

[mkilban2]

Take Manu Bennett, he's Māori, Slade Wilson isn't Māori, and people have no problem with him in the role. Hell, he pretty much has universal praise on these boards.

It's funny cause I really didn't like Bennett when I started watching Spartacus, or maybe I just wasn't the biggest fan of Crixus. but as that show went on I loved him and the character nearly the most, I think Gannius mighta been my favorite or Onimeous (sp). Going into arrow last year I had no clue he was in the show and I got so excited when I first saw him. Race matters zero to me, just give me the best actor for the job.

 

[mkilban2]

I dont follow Arrow so im just wondering with The Flash being introduced does he have powers and is he getting his traditional suit?

He got his powers, or at least the accident happened, but We haven't seen them used. He will have a suit but we don't know what it will look like.

 

[Alien Anal]

He got his powers, or at least the accident happened, but We haven't seen them used. He will have a suit but we don't know what it will look like.

Coool. I dont watch Arrow because from what i have seen it just seems to be a bunch of good looking people running around. The O.C with super powers.

Has it changed much from that?

 

[mkilban2]

Coool. I dont watch Arrow because from what i have seen it just seems to be a bunch of good looking people running around. The O.C with super powers.

Has it changed much from that?

Yes it's drastically different from how I perceived it too, being on the CW and all. I would strongly suggest giving it a chance, at least 5 episodes worth. It really finds it stride around mid season 1 and season two has been near perfection of keeping my attention save for maybe an episode or two and a plot point or two.

If you have Netflix and a few spare hours you gotta give it a try.

 

[Kevin Smith]

No, movies are based on the source material. They are inspired by it and sometimes even come off better (Blade). Whether the writer is good enough to create something better than the source material or not is usually a toss up. They're interesting interpretations (like Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns books are an interesting interpretation of Batman and his characters). That is all that they are. Michelle Pfeiffer being blonde does not make her any less of an awesome Catwoman and neither would a blonde Superman or, in this case, a black Wally West.

But the movies are NOT "Elseworlds" stories, they are supposed to be the culmination of the 70 plus years of characters' existence and stories and represent the BEST of that history, capture all the high points and highlights, the defining moments and traits and things about those characters, and take THAT, condense it, and show it to the world. Making those changes that you want is not doing that. They're not supposed to be merely an "interpretation" like you're saying, they are supposed to be "definitive", it's much more of a representation like I appropriately called it. One day when they do six Batman or Superman movies a year, you can have one or two "interpretations" in addition to the "status quo", "definitive" one, like how having 70 plus years of Batman and Superman stories, with sometimes 8 or more books and stories featuring those characters published per month, you can then afford to have 1 or 2 or almost as many different "interpretations" of those characters as you like, that are congruent with the established defining template of what that character is without impeding or overshadowing it ("real" character), it is not served in place of or does not overshadow or impede that but is its own thing and is recognized as such; as a branch or stepbrother, for lack of a better term.

You know, you are absolutely right. I think he would actually look pretty badass as a Klingon. Or at least with some Vulcan ears and eyebrows. Sub-Mariner's already doing that but that guy's not getting a movie any time soon.

You're the type of guy who pitches bad ideas to John Peters.

I don't really know how you can call yourself a Superman fan. Or if this is the mindest you have for all characters, a fan of ANY character for that matter. What parts of the character are you a fan of, and what percentage of parts are you allowed to like and not like that qualify you as a fan of the character(s) or not? If you do like a 1:10 ratio, is it say, 5 parts out of 10 parts of the character that constitute as counting that you like and make you qualify as a fan to you, or less or more?

How are any of those any less "real" than the one that's been worn the most often? By that logic this is the "real" Batman costume.

Ears are too short and the symbol is too low.

And I mean "real" in the sense that it does not sell its originality out to trends and what you probably call "updates" (like mullet, armor, t- shirt & jeans, all black, pockets and pouches, etc, every era has their own, all that crap is to me is deluding what is a complete concept on its own as an art form).

 

[Kevin Smith]

Boy, if THIS is true:

http://www.superheromoviesnews.com/...t-Features-a-Justice-League-Member-Cameo.html

That would be amazing. Look how that is written, just from the description of it, you KNOW that writer gives a damn about those characters. I would LOVE to see this Flash script. I am already willing to bet it is WORLDS better than the god-awful one Goyer wrote years ago (that I've read), and I have said it before and I'll say it again: I think Berlanti, Guggenheim, and Michael Green are all quite talented folks who GET the characters for the most part and genuinely LIKE and APPRECIATE them for what they are, AS THEY ARE. That the GL film was crap and any problems Arrow has or had is NOT their fault to me, but other forces at WB, whether they are directors like Martin Campbell, or WB execs and big shots, THOSE are the guys who are mucking their stuff up.

Because, and I still stand by this, the GL script, the first draft I read was GREAT (I give it a solid 8/10, 7.5/10, easily, as it was). It had just about everything in it I'd want in a GL origin movie and was true to character for the most part (and wasn't jacking off the Nolan films) and could have been great and its own thing if they'd have let it flourish as it was, I will remain very disappointed that they wasted so much potential with that script and what was the eventual GL film. After reading it back in '09, when I heard the people who wrote it were doing Flash next, I COULDN'T WAIT - I was beyond stoked and excited because I knew it was in good hands because I saw what they did with the GL script.

IF THIS Flash script is the one they did from back then....then I would absolutely love to see it and really hope it gets greenlit at WB and they make it into a movie, but this time give them more creative control over it. I am willing to say that if WB had let Greg Berlanti stay on as director instead of replacing him with Martin Campbell (a director who did NOT get the source material, IMO) because they thought the project was too big and too much to handle for an unexperienced director like Berlanti, then we just may had the GL movie we'd hoped to have seen, or at the very least a better one than the one we got. So hopefully someone recognizes this and gives them more creative clout and stays out of their way if they get to do The Flash, and that those people who would get in the way learned from the GL movie disaster.

In any event, keep Goyer the hell away from it - as far away as possible. Let it be its own thing without them (Goyer, etc - whoever else was responsible for atrocious MOS dialog) - their projects manage to retain an element of fun to them that I think is true of the characters themselves that could be tantamount to, if not better, than some of the stuff they're doing with the Marvel movies. (That GL script, the first draft, the one I read - was on par with the first Iron Man to me as it was).

 

[Kevin Smith]

Wow I'm mad I even caught up on this forum lol. Black Wally West or Johnny Storm or Heimdall or Batman or James Bond whomever does not bother me at all of they're the best for the part. Or any other race for that matter. Changing of skin color or hair color doesn't change the character itself.

If an openly homosexual actor was playing Superman would that be wrong? No because that doesn't change the story of Superman being with Lois Lane,

Well your next "approval" kind of would...

just as Wally being black doesnt change him being a dude who runs fast.

I honestly wouldn't even be mad if they made superman or batman gay in the movies themselves, it doesn't sour the character at all.

Ill end this with the fact that I'm not a comic reader and haven't read these characters for years and years but I'm open to different adaptations of things.

I didn't know "adapting" something meant destroying it. Why even bother at all?

 

[mkilban2]

Just because you're not comfortable with a character being homosexual (or seemingly black for that matter) doesn't mean it changes anything about who the character is or how that hero would be portrayed. He likes Louis Lane instead of Lois in my made up scenario... Big whoop. But I'm not going to get in some discussion over sexual orientation or racial preferences I only stated my beliefs and how changing things doesn't matter to me or sour te characters in my opinions.

Also seeing as those writer for the Flash movie are involved with Arrow I hope they're planning on keeping Gustin as Flash if a film is actually being made in addition to the show.

 

[Savage]

<snip>

Getting to the point of your entire argument, real fans only want the character as is with no deviation. Real fans not only like everything about a character but will be highly offended if any of those things are removed or, heaven forbid, changed. Going a little further, real fans like the most popular iteration of a character and everything else is garbage. So silver age or nothing. Yeah, that's healthy. If I was what you consider a "real" fan then I would hate all comic book movies because they're not exactly what I read on the pages.

Here's what a fan is to me. Someone who likes the character. That's it. Doesn't matter how many iterations there are. You don't have to like everything put out about a character even in their own books. I'm more concerned with the values that made me like the character in the first place being kept than his outfits. Are some outfits uglier than others? Yes. Do some turn out even better than the original ones? Yes to that too. This is something that applies to everything. If what you consider a real fan is someone locked in a time capsule then, buddy, I do not want to be a real fan. I want to be a person who enjoys comic books and the things that they inspire. If I was a "real" fan I would not even read comic books anymore because nothing is static.

 

[mkilban2]

An example I can bring up on the topic of source material translation to the screen, since I'm not a comic reader, is The Hunger games. I enjoy both the first and second books and have read them multiple times but in the on screen adaptations there is a lot that has been changed or left out or added that wasn't in the books. Things like Katniss not being able to find water for nearly a day in the arena and nearly dying isnt shown, the wolf dog things don't contain the similarities to the arena members who died, certain characters are left out like the mayors daughter who gives Katniss the mocking jay pin isn't there, Katniss doesn't even look how she's described in the book really either. But none of those things being lft out make me dislike the movie at all. They added a bunch of behind the scenes of the GameMakers stuff that isn't in the book that adds a lot to the film as well. The same things can be said about the second film as well, we don't see the watch or Haymitchs games but it doesn't hurt the story in my eyes.

If I want those things the book is there for me to experience them again. The same can be said for CBMs, if you want the stories you love or the perfect version of the character you love based on the stories you read about them in the comic book are there, but when those stories and characters are translated to the masses in film they are going to be adapted in a way to appeal to those masses. Things are undoubtably going to change.

Another example is IM3 (along with all MCU films thus far) where changes were made from the adaptations of a storyline, in this case Extremis. Like I said I've never read any comics but I did watch the animated version of the story and found it very boring the film adaptation blew me away. I enjoyed everything about it, Killian who was in the comic for a page or two becomes a fully fleshed out character. Then in addition they add The Mandarin persona split into two characters. While that adaptation is hated by many I see in the comic sites I view, I know nobody in real life who didn't enjoy it, as well as the critics for the most part.

These, in my eyes, are films adapted from a source material that went through changes of adding and dropping characters and plot lines that worked exceedlingly well in the eyes of the public masses. Changes to Wally West's race or something adapted differently from the books doesn't automatically make it wrong. I feel that many comic die hards go into these projects with a set image of what they want to see before actually seeing it and are then disappointed or they are unable to enjoy the product because they set a different expectation going in. Comic to film or tv adaptations need to be viewed with a blank slate because they aren't going to be the same as the comics. If they were then we'd have complaints that they didn't take any chances and just rehashed the stories in the books page by page.

Idk just my 2cents on the matter as a non comic guy

 

[Savage]

An example I can bring up on the topic of source material translation to the screen, since I'm not a comic reader, is The Hunger games. I enjoy both the first and second books and have read them multiple times but in the on screen adaptations there is a lot that has been changed or left out or added that wasn't in the books. Things like Katniss not being able to find water for nearly a day in the arena and nearly dying isnt shown, the wolf dog things don't contain the similarities to the arena members who died, certain characters are left out like the mayors daughter who gives Katniss the mocking jay pin isn't there, Katniss doesn't even look how she's described in the book really either. But none of those things being lft out make me dislike the movie at all. They added a bunch of behind the scenes of the GameMakers stuff that isn't in the book that adds a lot to the film as well. The same things can be said about the second film as well, we don't see the watch or Haymitchs games but it doesn't hurt the story in my eyes.

If I want those things the book is there for me to experience them again. The same can be said for CBMs, if you want the stories you love or the perfect version of the character you love based on the stories you read about them in the comic book are there, but when those stories and characters are translated to the masses in film they are going to be adapted in a way to appeal to those masses. Things are undoubtably going to change.

Another example is IM3 (along with all MCU films thus far) where changes were made from the adaptations of a storyline, in this case Extremis. Like I said I've never read any comics but I did watch the animated version of the story and found it very boring the film adaptation blew me away. I enjoyed everything about it, Killian who was in the comic for a page or two becomes a fully fleshed out character. Then in addition they add The Mandarin persona split into two characters. While that adaptation is hated by many I see in the comic sites I view, I know nobody in real life who didn't enjoy it, as well as the critics for the most part.

These, in my eyes, are films adapted from a source material that went through changes of adding and dropping characters and plot lines that worked exceedlingly well in the eyes of the public masses. Changes to Wally West's race or something adapted differently from the books doesn't automatically make it wrong. I feel that many comic die hards go into these projects with a set image of what they want to see before actually seeing it and are then disappointed or they are unable to enjoy the product because they set a different expectation going in. Comic to film or tv adaptations need to be viewed with a blank slate because they aren't going to be the same as the comics. If they were then we'd have complaints that they didn't take any chances and just rehashed the stories in the books page by page.

Idk just my 2cents on the matter as a non comic guy

You hit the nail right on the head and the bolded is what resonated with me. The movies and shows really are just those characters from the perspective of somebody else. If I don't like it then I'll go read the books. If I was even half as dogmatic as a lot of the people here I would not even enjoy Arrow because he's not cracking jokes while firing arrows while doing backflips and making sexual comments at everything female.

 

[mkilban2]

You hit the nail right on the head and the bolded is what resonated with me. The movies and shows really are just those characters from the perspective of somebody else. If I don't like it then I'll go read the books. If I was even half as dogmatic as a lot of the people here I would not even enjoy Arrow because he's not cracking jokes while firing arrows while doing backflips and making sexual comments at everything female.

Yeah I try and keep an open mind when it comes to comic book adapted things. But I also realize and respect that its really hard for others when they feel something that was done differently was wrong in theirs eyes. Nothing's going to please everyone, I just always hope that what I see on screen is well done and helps me understand the characters more an learn more about them since I don't have prior comic knowledge of them.

Kind of off topic, but I've seen a lot that Watchmen is the most comic accurate adaptation and I seriously hated it haha. Idk if that's because it was close to the source material with very little changes or just because I wouldn't have enjoyed the story regardless. But I always laugh when I see people that are comic fans love that movie so much and I'm sitting over here like uhh that was so boring and bad to me lol.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I would love it if they made Superman or Batman bi or gay, either in the comics or the movies.

Why not?

(And they wouldn't technically have to 'retcon' anything. People often don't realize their sexuality (or it changes) until a certain point in life).

 

[Alien Anal]

I would love it if they made Superman or Batman bi or gay, either in the comics or the movies.

Why not?

(And they wouldn't technically have to 'retcon' anything. People often don't realize their sexuality (or it changes) until a certain point in life).

I agree it would be an interesting change. Supermans character I think would be fitting to be bi sexual.

 

[HighFivingMF]

Coool. I dont watch Arrow because from what i have seen it just seems to be a bunch of good looking people running around.

Pretty much every piece of visual entertainment is about good looking people doing things. Not sure why it would be a turn-off for Arrow, but not for anything else. Unless you actually think it's just good looking people running in circles for 60 minutes.

 

[Lord Valumart]

But the movies are NOT "Elseworlds" stories, they are supposed to be the culmination of the 70 plus years of characters' existence and stories and represent the BEST of that history, capture all the high points and highlights, the defining moments and traits and things about those characters, and take THAT, condense it, and show it to the world. Making those changes that you want is not doing that. They're not supposed to be merely an "interpretation" like you're saying, they are supposed to be "definitive", it's much more of a representation like I appropriately called it. One day when they do six Batman or Superman movies a year, you can have one or two "interpretations" in addition to the "status quo", "definitive" one, like how having 70 plus years of Batman and Superman stories, with sometimes 8 or more books and stories featuring those characters published per month, you can then afford to have 1 or 2 or almost as many different "interpretations" of those characters as you like, that are congruent with the established defining template of what that character is without impeding or overshadowing it ("real" character), it is not served in place of or does not overshadow or impede that but is its own thing and is recognized as such; as a branch or stepbrother, for lack of a better term.

No.

The adaptions are supposed to make a fun film that the masses will enjoy and that fans will see because guess what? It's got their character in it!

It's impossible for a movie to be the "definitive" version of any character from a long running series of comics or books. There's been so many version of the characters through the history of their starting medium that it's impossible to get a "definitive" version.

And there would also be no reboots or recasting. So after Burton's Batman hit big, no more Batman movies or TV shows because that would be the "definitive" version. Oh, hang on, Adam West was Batman and that was popular before that so he must be the "definitve" version for the character. But what about the movie serials from the 40's? They hit big with the character first so thats the "definitve" version of Batman.

Adaptions are just that. They take things and adapt them. Sure LotR's is closer to the books, but that's because there's only three books. And even then it chops and changes some stuff to get a better flow in the medium of film. There's apparently VAST bit cut out of the later Harry Potter films that needed to be other wise it just wouldn't work as a film.

A film or TV series is an adaption. They're not representing the "definitve" version of any character. The Dresden Files had a TV series, it was kinda bad, it wasn't the Harry Dresden I knew from the books, but I still enjoyed it even though it changed a bunch of things. I'd love to see someone have another go at adapting it, maybe as a series of 2/3 hour mini series, who knows. But with your logic Paul Blackthorn is the "defintive" version of Harry Dresden and we're never getting another one.

An adpation from book/comic/whatever is on way of presenting the character. That's why Adam West's Batman exists and why Bale's Batman exists.

 

[Alien Anal]

Pretty much every piece of visual entertainment is about good looking people doing things. Not sure why it would be a turn-off for Arrow, but not for anything else. Unless you actually think it's just good looking people running in circles for 60 minutes.

Hah yeh well I partially agree, which is kind of my point. But saying that there are plenty of tv shows and movies that are not about overly good looking model looking people and their wealthy problems. I just cant stand watching those types of shows.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

Coool. I dont watch Arrow because from what i have seen it just seems to be a bunch of good looking people running around. The O.C with super powers.

Has it changed much from that?

That's a very shallow view from someone who wouldn't mind Superman and Batman being gay. You should take your own advice and look beyond face value.