Arrow The Barry Allen/The Flash Thread - Part 1

[Frico]

Was this posted btw? Pretty amazing fanart. (found on twitter):

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

Rad.

 

[mkilban2]

Rad.

Totally tubular.

Cowabunga!

 

[Kevin Smith]

Was this posted btw? Pretty amazing fanart. (found on twitter):

Wow, sans the two pronged logo, that is pretty friggin' cool!

EDIT: Also sans the gold trim along the ridge of his cowl - didn't notice that the first time, REALLY hate that.

 

[Rorschach2012]

It's well done. The artist is talented. But still, i really dislike the costume.

 

[Kevin Smith]

They don't and they aren't.

No...they're dirty blonde. Google it.

We're having this discussion because we disagree. Your opinion is not fact and is also no more or less valid than mine. But I'm sure you'll disagree with that too.

That some people here would have the characters virtually unrecognizable is not an opinion, it is an observation.

Says who? You? The guy who thinks he's more of a fan than other people here because he has an uncompromising view of what these characters should look like? Spare me.

Yes, the changes some of the people here profess to "approve" of destroy the character(s), so yeah, I would say that makes them "less of a fan" when they go about promoting the destruction of the thing they profess to "love".

Don't you ever say that I'm not a real Superman fan.

I don't think that I ever did that, but if you approve of changing Superman into a woman, making him gay, making him not an alien, and all the other similarly stupid changes that the deluded people who think they are being "progressive" by promoting such approve of, then yeah, you're damn right I will say you and whoever isn't a "real" Superman fan until the cows come home - and you know what? I'd expect the same to be said of me if I ever approved of such things.

Your attitude is disgusting. The sad thing is I actually used to respect you.

You called me narrow minded for wanting Superman to be as he has appeared for 70 years and have The Flash look like The Flash, I responded with sarcasm. Sorry if you can't handle it. (that my attitude is "disgusting" is ALSO "opinion", and not fact, although I am sure you will disagree with that. )

And just because you don't like what I have to say about this doesn't mean you have to "dislike" what I have to say about everything.

I still respect you, as well as every other poster here. It is only their viewpoints I take issue with and not them as people, as they have never done anything wrong to me personally.

That being said - spare me the status of what your respect is for me. I really do not care at the end of the day, to the degree that a faceless person over the internet doesn't respect me.

 

[Kevin Smith]

Ah come on now, this is getting childish. We're arguing over who the bigger fan is based on their willingness to embrace a change.

What you quoted from me was sarcasm in response to something another poster said (in seriousness) about me. I even included a " " (sarcasm) emoticon and the image of Lucy and Ricky sticking their tongues out at each other to accentuate the point and let people know I was aware of what I was doing.

I think you missed that...?

We embrace a change every time a new artist takes over a book and they draw the boots different, or make characters look a less square jaw hero. Embrace the change and eventually in years down the line Wally will be a ginger woman.

I do not understand how you are comparing an artist's own individual art style, how he draws the same character, to changing the character's sexual orientation, race, sex, etc....because the white they use to color him in 1964 is not the same white used for him (and all other characters) in 1987, that means NOTHING - they're STILL the same characters, I mean good god that's like saying because a picture of me from 1997 has different resolution than a picture of me taken from 2008 is the same thing as me being a man or white in a 1994 picture and black or a woman in 2010 - that's possibly the most idiotic thing I have ever heard in my entire life.

 

[Kevin Smith]

It's well done. The artist is talented. But still, i really dislike the costume.

Not a fan of the "mazeness" on it and the belt needs to look more "lightning-y", but it's a lot better than some of the robo/"Iron"-Flashes that have been thrown around here to be sure.

Also I have never been a fan of the chin chap on the New 52 suit, I think it's stupid, but it doesn't bother me too much in this pic, I have to pay attention to it.

EDIT: Also sans the gold trim along the ridge of his cowl - didn't notice that the first time, REALLY hate that.

 

[Kevin Smith]

So you're reneging

I haven't changed my mind about a thing.

and repeating yourself.

Which I will continue to do as long as you address me until you get it.

You think a Turquoise person looks like an Almond person, which is really galling.

Not sure how wrapped in delusion you had to get to come to that conclusion about anything I said...I'm pretty sure I was the one telling you the difference between colors.

1) You have your own definition of black that is different from that of society at large.

No, they're actually formed from what society's are at large.

You think it's my reality to see light brown "black" people and biracial people as "black" even though they are always put in that box. Terrence Howard, Beyonce and the like are unambiguously black, and they look more like Johnny Depp and Nichole Scherzinger than they do Chris Rock and Octavia Spencer.

Continue....

no one who does casting for any reputable agency sees things this way. It's just you and your personal definition.

Most of the names you listed don't look "white" either and could not be mistaken as such...some of them are lighter skinned black/etc...they still do not look white. Not sure what your point was with this.

Are there chocolate "black" people? Are there "black" people who look very different from most "white" people? Yes! But your "logic" is that because SLJ/Chris Rock/MLK/That Guy from that One Comic Appearance don't look like most "white" people, that no "black" person looks like Wally West... this is simple deductive fallacy.

Here's some more Neal Adams drawing of a black male:

(^^ Last one is not by Neal Adams but my point remains the same)

There's nothing ambiguous looking about that. He is black. Gardner (and Hal) is (are) white.

But then again, the artists probably just have the same "distorted" perception that I do...

And no black person will look like Wally West (unless they go the Tropic Thunder route) because Wally West is white.

2) Just as you regard all black people as the same, you regard all white people as the same.

If you're black you're black, if you're white you're white - different shades of the same skin tone are not tantamount to a change in ethnicity.

Wally West is never colored white.

You mean like the color of paper? I'd have to agree there, but he is colored the human equivalent of white because that is the color/race/"ethnicity" he is.

He's been varying shades of light brown, different shades, but you seem to think he's always been the same exact color, even though he has not.

He is always white because that is the race he is. Just because the color of paint that is used for white in 1963 is not the same as the paint being used for white in 1986 doesn't make him at all any less white - he is the same character, coloring is something that is updated all of the time in comics, but what is supposed to be white is always white, whether they use the 63 coloring or 86 coloring for each artist - this is not the equivalent of changing the character's race.

You say that all the different noses he's had are the same nose,

Except he's not had "different noses" - nice try.

and all the different skin tones he's had are the same.

He is always white - caucasian, because that is the race he is.

This is observably not true

Please show me what you cite as "proof" for this. I would love to see it.

but you count artists interpretation as the same, so an artists interpretation of Wally West as black should carry the same weight. Mysteriously it doesn't.

Because Wally West's race doesn't change every time someone new draws him.

A new artist isn't drawing Wally with a black nose or a snub nose or a nose like the Penguin, they're drawing him how they draw a human white person's nose, their version of human white Wally.

3) You make uneven comparisons.

The Sinestro thing is just bad, you basically had to just ignore my statements and repeat yourself (that's the main reason why this conversation is ending, btw). The whole equating big differences with little differences is also bad, but you're not going to shake that one.

Awfully ironic coming from the person who says that because one artist draws the same character more or less simplisticly than another does and because the colorist is different from book to book (akin to different directors using different lighting and picture styles) it's the same thing as changing a character's race, sex, and sexual orientation.

How's that for uneven?

In your mind, "black" is "chocolate" and everyone sees it that way (despite countless films and comics But what's really funny is the height thing. You note that changing the height can change the story,

It can, as can race, sex, and sexual orientation.

so here's the real kicker, what really strikes me:

Does making Wally West "black" change his story? Even if they do make him dark brown, does that change anything about anything he does?

It might.

Is he less heroic, less lovable, less impetuous?

He is less Wally West.

Changing his height can change the story, make it more or less dramatic, like you stated,

I wasn't talking about him specifically when I said that, but it may also in the case of Wally West...

but does changing this aspect of Wally West change anything other than his skin tone, and maybe hair texture?

You say that muscles define Arnold and height defines Coleman, it has determined what roles they can play in their chosen profession of acting. That actually makes sense, okay. But does "white" define Wally West? Is there anything about Wally West as a person that requires being "white?"

Well Wally is from a small town out in the midwest (Blue Valley, Nebraska) which statistically probably makes more sense for him to be white...if he were from Baltimore or the Bronx or Kenya where there are historically a higher percentage of blacks, then yeah, it probably would make less sense for him to be white (or equal sense for him to be black) (not that there can NOT be blacks from small midwest towns, that's not what I'm saying at all - I don't even consider blacks to be exclusively "urban", and would not even use that term to describe a black person, as you do a little below, but let's table that for now), but the big thing is, and you're still missing this, is that he is NOT. He is white. He has red hair. He is a human being. He has two arms and two legs. He is mobile. He can see. He can hear. He can speak. These are other things that make him Wally West that should not even have to be pointed out in addition to his skin color.

Or put another way, if Wally West got transferred into a "black" kid's body, would he be any less Wally West? Would he no longer be himself? Would you like him more? Less?

No, he'd be Wally West in that black kid's body - he would not be "black Wally West".

I'm sorry you're so hung up on the idea of changing a character's race so much - is the character Wally West black in something I missed? Is Wally a shapeshifter? Did I miss those issues?

Bonus) This pandering thing is so inconsistent. Casting "white" actors (or adapting "white" properties) is never called pandering, even though it is,

How?

Adapting something the way it is isn't pandering, it's called getting it right.

Adapting a black property isn't pandering, either.

and no other change from source material is called pandering, fanservice isn't even called pandering,

By who? Little easter eggs that are unnecessary, "fan service", you could call that pandering, sure, I agree with that.

but this change? "This is pandering, and can only be pandering." There are a dozen reasons for race changes: the creators like black people, the creators like diversity, the creators want a more urban feel,

Why does black equate "urban feel" to you? I always hate when people describe blacks as "urban", as if there are no upper class black people and blacks who don't dwell in the city, that right there - THAT is a stereotype.

the creators want to be different, the creators have a specific actor in mind, the creators think/know they can get "black" actors cheaper... and all these come in to play. And even if it is pandering, the same pandering that happens with white actors and girls in skimpy clothes and only casting attractive people... why is it a bad thing, exactly? No reason.

So...pretty much what you're saying is even if there's "no reason" for it, it's still okay to you.

And that is where we disagree - there IS no reason for it, it is unnecessary, it is stupid, because Wally West is white.

So yeah, I enjoyed this discussion, but when you stop addressing my counterpoints

Where you twist what I say?

and start repeating yourself,

Which I will continue to do until you get it.

Spoiler

Wally West isn't black.

I can confidently say it's not going anywhere, that you're not looking for information,

Not from you, no, a person who thinks how a white person is colored in a comic is how a black person is colored, no, I don't think I need information from that person.

you just want to win, in which case:

You win. Martin Luther King Jr. shouldn't play Wally West, and the only thing Martin Luther King Jr. is good for is pandering to black people.

Yeeeaahhh....try a little harder with the race bait next time.

"KS thinks MLK's irrelevant!!"



Twist my words...nice thing to go out on with your argument.

Good discussion.

Glad you think so.

I haven't seen big deals made over any hair changes on the same spectrum, so they can't be that big a deal,

People dye hair all the time, it's not what I want but it's not quite the same as changing a character's race, even if it is almost as bad in some cases.

In today's world two people that look like that could very well could be brothers.

Not a chance, but even so, out in Hicksville Nebraska? I mean I guess anything is possible, but that doesn't mean it is likely.

Regardless, the change in skin tone is roughly equal to the change in hair from Comic book Ollie to Arrow Ollie. No worries there, so no worries here either.

In no way in hell is it at all "roughly equal" to racial change at all.

That's what's really odd about these comparisons. Are you saying that black Wally West is different from white Wally West because Michael Jai White is different from Warren Beaty? That it's not that they're from different eras with different skill sets and interests and families... no, it's one being white and one being black, that's what makes them different!?

No, because black is different from white.

And incidentally, being black and white is what also makes Michael Jai White different from Warren Beaty, too.

If it's on... you... why would I take you to school!? It's on you.

Smug.

Like... seriously? People still believe this?

These are the faithful comic book movies:
Watchmen (64%)[185M]

Watchmen was faithful visually but did not translate anything else, took things away that were important and added things that were out of place and unnecessary and ended up being a poor film. It failed to convey what made the book great, maybe it was doomed from the start. This is a topic that will start a HUGE debate, I am sure, but let's do that another time in some other thread (I know I have at least once before).

Sin City (78%)[158M]
Kick Ass (77%) [96M]
300 (60%)[456M]

Made money, immensely popular with the public, good reviews considering what the source material was to begin with...your point?

Daredevil

You listed this as being true to source material?

Most Successful/Highly Rated Comic Book Movies:
Avengers (92%)[1500M] - Loki, Thor, IM and Hulk being there is the same. EVERYTHING else from personalities to dialogue to relationships to plot points to motivations to powers to you name it is unfaithful, and loved, including a high profile race swap.

What race change? You mean Ultimate Nick Fury? The characters are very much who they are in the comics in that movie, even almost the same visually (although I don't know a single person who hasn't complained about Cap's suit - fan and non fan alike).

The Dark Knight (94%)[1004M] - More faithful than Avengers. The Joker is an insane theatrical criminal, Bruce Wayne calls himself Batman and has martial arts, stealth and gadgets. EVERYTHING else is unfaithful and loved. Extra points for the high profile raceswap in Begins and two more the Dark Knight rises.

What else was unfaithful? They did the same thing the comics did - which is to keep the characters as their "status quo" and tell a new story. Sorry, who was "race swapped" in Batman Begins and TDKR that was such an important character? Commissioner Loeb? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even be asking if that were the case... Bane is pretty much covered completely and has his voice augmented (besides, Bane was Nolan's own creation more than anything else - and let's face it, TDKR was only as successful as it was because it was TDK's sequel (even put "TDK" in the name - nice marketing), because it was easily the weakest of the trilogy).

Spider-Man 2 (94%)[783M] - More faithful than Dark Knight. He's mostly missing homemade web shooters. He got bit by a spider and got Spider-powers in the first film, he made the transition from high school to college.

Ultimate Spider-Man doesn't have web shooters, so this is moot...

Iron Man (93%)[585M] - More faithful than Spider-Man. Tony's origin is largely the same, and he fights a villain who is actually from the comics in this one

A great all around movie and one of, if not arguably the best, CBM.

(though he ends up fighting really unfaithful amalgams later, and totally pissing off fans in his most unfaithful billion dollar film later).

...which we only had because the first film was so great - it was great because it was true to what Iron Man is. (in fact, the whole MCU can thank Iron Man for this and its success)

So it seems the less faithful something is, the better shot it has at being successful. Ones that take liberties are consistently above 75% fresh at rotten tomatoes. Ones that are doggedly adherent and faithful consistently get below 75%.

Not a chance in hell - you also left out Batman 1989 and Superman: The Movie (adjust for inflation - they are still huge - and even unadjusted, they are still iconic). The only reason there were "better performing" sequels to some of these is because the original films were so good and true to character.

But you're on the right track.

Thought this was about "opinion", not "right" or "wrong"?

There's nothing faithful about Avengers without the Pyms,

Sure there is, the Pyms are not in every Avengers story.

or a Batman who isn't the World's Greatest Detective, or a Spider-Man who isn't brilliant enough to make his own web-shooters... but its still the character, and loved for the same reasons, even when these things that supposedly define them are are taken away, because the truth is everything about a person doesn't define them. The popularity of these unfaithful characters is proof of that.

Well here you're arguing that even intellect and personality don't define a person or character, either - and you're wrong on both.

Here's how Whedon puts it when asked about the unnecessary and disrespectful change of removing Pym from Ultron:

Condescending. How's the air up there?

But what does that scrub who couldn't even get a Wonder Woman movie made know, anyway?

Yeah, so most the things that are good in the comics should remain in the live action adaptations, and the things that are not should...not. That's common sense. Wally West being white isn't one of those things that is dumb or stupid and won't go over well with audiences, so it should be left the way it is.

Hank Pym hasn't even shown up in an MCU film yet, how else were they going to get Ultron with having Pym unestablished? Tony builds machines - it's a no brainer.

 

[Human Torch]

Yes, the changes some of the people here profess to "approve" of destroy the character(s), so yeah, I would say that makes them "less of a fan" when they go about promoting the destruction of the thing they profess to "love".




I don't think that I ever did that, but if you approve of changing Superman into a woman, making him gay, making him not an alien, and all the other similarly stupid changes that the deluded people who think they are being "progressive" by promoting such approve of, then yeah, you're damn right I will say you and whoever isn't a "real" Superman fan until the cows come home - and you know what? I'd expect the same to be said of me if I ever approved of such things.

I Agree,KS.Well said.

 

[Nathan]

Was this posted btw? Pretty amazing fanart. (found on twitter):

Wow, that's pretty ace.

 

[william]

Pretty amazing fanart I found it...

 

[Kevin Smith]

Pretty amazing fanart I found it...

That's nice. I'd just get rid of the lines going all over his crotch/cod piece area, connect the "belt", and fix the trim on the gloves so it wraps around instead of wrapping around a little then running up his arm to his hand - I'd also probably ditch the "lenses", but they look better here than in some other renditions I've seen and I actually don't mind them too much in this pic - I'm just not a big fan of the "lenses"/"goggles" in general for The Flash though and would prefer he not have them. Very cool images, good find.

 

[Nathan]

It's essentially the comic costume, but somehow he looks really naked there.

 

[Boy Scout]

No...they're dirty blonde. Google it.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_color_was_val_kilmer%27s_hair_in_batman_forever?#slide=2

http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/Batman_(Val_Kilmer)

http://celebrities.findthedata.org/q/269/103/What-is-the-celebrity-Val-Kilmer-s-natural-hair-color

Adam West does look blonde (not dirty blonde) in some photos, but not in any of the ones that were taken during his time as Batman.

That some people here would have the characters virtually unrecognizable is not an opinion, it is an observation.

Pay attention to what you're responding to. That part of my post was a response to your assertion that making Batman a blonde isn't the same thing (or as sacrilegious) as doing the exact same thing to Superman.

Yes, the changes some of the people here profess to "approve" of destroy the character(s), so yeah, I would say that makes them "less of a fan" when they go about promoting the destruction of the thing they profess to "love".

I can't even take you seriously. There is so much arrogance in that paragraph that I don't even know where to begin with deconstructing it.

I don't think that I ever did that...

That's exactly what you did, even if you didn't come right out and say it.

but if you approve of changing Superman into a woman, making him gay, making him not an alien

None of those things are comparable to casting a blonde actor to portray the character, and therefore have nothing to do with the discussion you and I are having.

and all the other similarly stupid changes that the deluded people who think they are being "progressive" by promoting such approve of, then yeah, you're damn right I will say you and whoever isn't a "real" Superman fan until the cows come home - and you know what? I'd expect the same to be said of me if I ever approved of such things.

I can't even take you seriously. There is so much arrogance in that paragraph that I don't even know where to begin with deconstructing it.

You called me narrow minded for wanting Superman to be as he has appeared for 70 years and have The Flash look like The Flash, I responded with sarcasm. Sorry if you can't handle it.

Apology accepted.

(that my attitude is "disgusting" is ALSO "opinion", and not fact, although I am sure you will disagree with that. )

Why would I? It is an opinion. I never said it was fact.

And just because you don't like what I have to say about this doesn't mean you have to "dislike" what I have to say about everything.

No, it doesn't have to be that way, but that's where I'm at right now. Your attitude kind of dilutes all of your good ideas.

To be clear, I'm speaking strictly in reference to the discussions that are typically had around these parts. I don't have any issues with you as a person and would not let this discussion factor in to my agreement with you about issues that actually important.

I still respect you, as well as every other poster here. It is only their viewpoints I take issue with and not them as people, as they have never done anything wrong to me personally.

Then maybe you should act like it.

That being said - spare me the status of what your respect is for me

Okay.

 

[hopeless]

In Smallville wasn't one of Clark's closest friends in childhood also changed in the same way that Wally West is being suggested?

This isn't the Comic's version of Flash or Kid Flash this is the Smallville equivalent and given the changes in that series I'd be more worried about their intended storyline than their choices for who fills what role... as I recall Wally is Iris's cousin so their change does make sense in that context.

Now how about discussing what we'd like to see in this new tv series?

Have a Super villain group in addition to the Rogues say like a Legion of Doom for crossovers with Arrow?

Will Jay Garrick make an appearance?

Speaking of which, what if Green Lantern is introduced after all if they can afford the effects for Flash and eventually Kid Flash what about which Green Lantern you'd like to see?

How old would Hal Jordan be compared to Barry?

And what if Diggle is elevated into becoming the John Stewart of that ring bearing organisation?

 

[Kevin Smith]

I Agree,KS.Well said.

Thank you.

 

[Kevin Smith]

Hal and Barry are the same age in the comics, usually.

 

[Kevin Smith]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_color_was_val_kilmer%27s_hair_in_batman_forever?#slide=2

http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/Batman_(Val_Kilmer)

http://celebrities.findthedata.org/q/269/103/What-is-the-celebrity-Val-Kilmer-s-natural-hair-color

I have eyes and can determine the color of Val Kilmer's hair in Batman Forever just fine - it's dirty blonde.

Adam West does look blonde (not dirty blonde) in some photos, but not in any of the ones that were taken during his time as Batman.

You're right, because it's dirty blonde.

Pay attention to what you're responding to. That part of my post was a response to your assertion that making Batman a blonde isn't the same thing (or as sacrilegious) as doing the exact same thing to Superman.

While it's still pretty bad, it's not quite as bad as doing it to Superman.

I can't even take you seriously. There is so much arrogance in that paragraph that I don't even know where to begin with deconstructing it.

Whatever. I stand by it.

That's exactly what you did, even if you didn't come right out and say it.

Then I will come right out and say it here - if those are the things you approve of doing to Superman, then you are NOT a Superman fan.

None of those things are comparable to casting a blonde actor to portray the character, and therefore have nothing to do with the discussion you and I are having.

Other posters have reasoned that they are the same and expressed approval for such notions, it has everything to do with this discussion.

I can't even take you seriously. There is so much arrogance in that paragraph that I don't even know where to begin with deconstructing it.

I stand by everything that was said. The Justice League is not up for grabs for anyone's distortion.

Apology accepted.

I take it back.

No, it doesn't have to be that way, but that's where I'm at right now. Your attitude kind of dilutes all of your good ideas.

No it doesn't dilute any idea of mine and it shouldn't, it may cast a shadow over them for people unable to look at the things a person says objectively, but that's about it.

Every now and then, even somebody you hate says something you like.

To be clear, I'm speaking strictly in reference to the discussions that are typically had around these parts. I don't have any issues with you as a person and would not let this discussion factor in to my agreement with you about issues that actually important.

It is however just enough to get you to "lose all respect" for me, these "unimportant" issues.

To me they are important.

Then maybe you should act like it.

I do and have, and haven't been disrespectful towards anyone. You accused me of being narrow minded for wanting The Flash and Superman to appear as they always are - that I'm not a "big thinker" for wanting that and being against some of the changes maybe you and other posters want for the characters.

 

[erehwon0]

Pretty amazing fanart I found it...

Almost everything is classic Flash costume except for the crotch area. The lightning belt looks as if it was pointing towards his crotch and looks as if he was wearing a cup.?! Like a G-string on backwards. Aside from that bizarre area, I find it really well drawn.

Still it doesn't look as if a costume can be made from this example (my opinion).

On the race issue, I have to agree with Kevin Smith on this one. I will have an open mind IF AND WHEN CW decides to do this (I still have doubts). But I will give it a shot. So far CW/WB have close to found their mark with Arrow and MOS (more or less). But if they end up being WRITTEN as uncharismatic as Laurel, Thea and Roy, then I will have problems with it.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Pretty amazing fanart I found it...

This makes me feel really uncomfortable for some reason. I'm hoping the suit looks more like the 90s tv show suit and the suit in the Flash video game that wasn't made

 

[Kevin Smith]

I loved the TV show suit, I just never cared for the nose piece on it.

 

[Kevin Smith]

JWS' chin was the envy of men.

 

[Sawyer]

Horrible cowl is horrible.

 

[Kevin Smith]

Horrible cowl is horrible.

This.