The Official Flash Thread - Part 2

[Visceral]

I think they should make a flash film after DKR kills the place. Flash doesn't need a big budget.

 

[OPAZO]

I made this movie poster. The Flash artwork is made by a cat named Isikol he has deviantart, check him out! Some really cool stuff!

I still want Bradley Cooper to play Bary Allen, because Bary is a fun character and no serious buzz kill guy.

And I want James McTeigue to direct this movie! I loved his work in the Matrix-trilogy, V for Vendetta and Ninja Assassin!

 

[terry78]

There's a difference between funny and cornball. Favreau knows how to find that balance. Vaughn was able to capture it to an extent in First Class.

 

[JAK®]

Once again, that's how The Flash is in the comic books. Live action is different, but people just don't get it.

I think it's you that doesn't get it.

I remember when the first teaser from Green Lantern was released. It was too light with the jokes and everything. I said Green Lantern should be a more serious character, almost everybody disagreed with me. "Green Lantern is fun", they said. "He should be like Iron Man".

Well as I said at the time, the trailer was more serious than people gave it credit for, it was just a couple of humorous moments stood out in a bad way.

And now we have Timstuff going like this:

I don't care what Timstuff thinks.

It's time for people to make their mind about what they actually want. Should the DC heroes be lots on fun with bright colourful heroes who cracks jokes everytime the heat turns up? Or should they be put in situations where they need to be 100% serious and use all of their abilities just to save the day? None of them should come out with any smile on their lips afterwards, but be exhausted or shaken because of the effort they had to put into it.

Clearly, the only answer is hyperbole.

You seem to think that 'fun' means 'stupid' and 'dark' means 'great'. They are simply different tones. There is no inherent quality within them.

There's a reason why a list of Spielberg's greatest films will just as likely include Indiana Jones as well as Schindler's List.

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

I'd love if Bradley Cooper played Barry Allen. He should play Barry kinda like his character in The Hangover. A cool guy that just wants to look out for his friends. I kinda like The CSi angle. I'd love if a subplot during the movie is that he would be trying to find his dad killer and the killer could be a villain in the movie.

 

[Kokomo29]

Maybe I'm just being a pessimist and should shut up, but now that Green Lantern appears to be a critical failure and isn't doing all that well at the box office, seriously what are the chances we'll ever get a Flash movie?

I have this aching feeling that WB is seriously reconsidering their superhero movie plans... (minus Batman and Superman for the time being)

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

They need new franchises. They'll regroup and re access but a Flash movie will be the next DC character they make after Bats and Supes. He'll be the easiest and cheapest.

 

[Timstuff]

Berlanti described his treatment for The Flash as "Silence of the Lambs meets The Matrix." My first reaction was "that is ******ed, and doesn't make sense," and my second thought is "that sounds nothing like the kind of Flash movie I would want to see." Some people seem to have misinterpreted my comments as meaning that I want Flash to be straight-up campy nonsense like Fox's Fanastic 4. I don't think it's too much to ask for a well balanced movie that manages to have a good sense of humor while also having dynamic emotional highs and lows. Fantastic 4 failed in my opinion because not only was its sense of humor very generic and trendy, but it never actually gave me an emotional connection to the characters. The whole thing was generic with no heart behind it. It's fault was not that it tried to be funny, but rather that it failed at being funny, and there was nothing in the movie that made me care about what was happening. The whole thing felt like a blur of mumbling-- it was easily the least dynamic superhero movie I have seen.

Wanting Flash to have a sense of humor and for the movie to be fun does not mean that it has to be a cheesy self parody of itself. I would rather see a flash movie that does the villains in a way that they actually resemble their comic selves while Flash mocks them for their odd taste in motifs than for them to barely resemble the characters they a supposed to be so that the movie can be "gritty and real." If there is any hero in the DC hero lineup whose movie should focus on being fun, it' The Flash. I'm not against having dark stuff in parts of the story, but when I hear "Silence of the Lambs meets the Matrix," I get an overwhelming sense that the movie will have a stick up its butt.

 

[Octoberist]

I'd say drop Berlanti and his team.

 

[Kokomo29]

I'd say drop Berlanti and his team.

I agree. Bring in a new writer or set of writers and they can either "clean up" the existing draft or create and entirely new one. WB knows now what they DON'T WANT to happen again, so hopefully they can learn, move ahead and not let Green Lantern's drawbacks withhold them from persuing new superhero franchises.

 

[MadVillainy]

I'd say drop Berlanti and his team.

Hell yes.

And that will probably happen with GL underperforming commercially and bombing critically

 

[Airwings]

JAK: I am able to see a serious apporach working well. But you are just stuck in the comic book style and can't accept anything else.

Think about it: more or less every superhero adaption that have a higher part of goofy elements are the ones that people hate the most. And the darker ones are lifted to the sky by the critics (and people alike)

 

[Octoberist]

umm..super dark movies like critically liked Iron Man and Thor?

 

[Airwings]

Iron Man 2 was more goofy than the first, and it's not liked as much. Thor has more fantastical elements than goofiness. Then we have the two Fantastic Four films... and Shumacher's version of Batman... and Superman 3 & 4.... I think that says enough

The more serious films are Superman 2, Burton's Batman, Nolan's Batman, Singer's X-Men etc

Got the point by now? Then in which of these groups would you want the movie adaption of Flash to be?

 

[Octoberist]

I suppose Superman 2. it also has to have an optismic tone and while Iron Man 2 was all over the place, Iron man 1 had it right.

 

[Timstuff]

Iron Man 2 had the same problem as Fantastic 4. Iron Man 1 had clearly defined emotional highs and lows, while Iron Man 2 felt "mumbled out." I never felt as invested in the characters as I did in the first one, and even when Tony Stark was at his lowest in the movie I didn't feel bad for him the way I did in the first movie. Iron Man 1 made you feel bad for Tony when he was knocked down, which meant you stood up and cheer when he kicked ass. Iron Man 2 was just plain an unfocused mess and I count it as one of the more disappointing sequels that I've seen in recent years.

Transformers 2 was much more disappointing, but at least I felt something when [blackout]Optimus Prime and Sam "died"[/blackout]. Knowing that Tony Stark was "dying" in Iron Man 2 never really hit home to me-- if anything they made it into an anitclimax. If they wanted us to take the threat seriously, Tony's toxicity levels should have actually started killing him before he could finish his new element, and then Pepper shows up and has to follow his directions while the poison wreaks havoc on his body. Instead, Nick Fury showed up with his magic needle a few scenes earlier and reversed the effects of the poison before Tony even makes the new element, so that is a plot point that gets tied off before it even reaches its emotional conclusion.

 

[Timstuff]

I agree. Bring in a new writer or set of writers and they can either "clean up" the existing draft or create and entirely new one. WB knows now what they DON'T WANT to happen again, so hopefully they can learn, move ahead and not let Green Lantern's drawbacks withhold them from persuing new superhero franchises.

Too many cooks ruins the soup-- I say just scrap Berlanti's Flash script altogether and start from the ground up. Bringing in new writers to clean up his GL script didn't help GL, and giving Duke Nukem Forever to Gearbox after 13 years of development didn't stop it from sucking. Sometimes you just plain need a clean slate.

 

[JAK®]

JAK: I am able to see a serious apporach working well. But you are just stuck in the comic book style and can't accept anything else.

I'm not the one saying that only one approach can work.

Think about it: more or less every superhero adaption that have a higher part of goofy elements are the ones that people hate the most. And the darker ones are lifted to the sky by the critics (and people alike)

Spider-Man. Iron Man. Thor.

Fun does not mean goofy. Stop making that mistake.

 

[Airwings]

JAK: I see a serious version as the best way to go, because fun superhero films are outshined by the more serious ones. I have seen several fun adaptions of well-known superheroes, and formed a personal opinion.

You, on the other hand (and some more people here), wouldn't want a serious Flash because he should be all fun and entertaining in your opinions.

But bringing his gallery of villains as an argument, doesn't hold all the way. I mean, why shouldn't his villains work the same way as Batman bad guys do? Take a look at The Joker in the 60s series with Adam West, and compare with Ledger in Dark Knight. It's one and the same character, approached in two different ways. No matter how you turn it around, it's still The Joker. The same can go for The Flash' enemies as well. We just need to think outside the box (thing outside the comic book).

 

[JAK®]

JAK: I see a serious version as the best way to go, because fun superhero films are outshined by the more serious ones. I have seen several fun adaptions of well-known superheroes, and formed a personal opinion.

There is no correlation between tone and quality. Your opinion is flawed.

You, on the other hand (and some more people here), wouldn't want a serious Flash because he should be all fun and entertaining in your opinions.

Based on the tone of 60 years of Flash stories.

But bringing his gallery of villains as an argument, doesn't hold all the way. I mean, why shouldn't his villains work the same way as Batman bad guys do? Take a look at The Joker in the 60s series with Adam West, and compare with Ledger in Dark Knight. It's one and the same character, approached in two different ways. No matter how you turn it around, it's still The Joker. The same can go for The Flash' enemies as well. We just need to think outside the box (thing outside the comic book).

I never brought up his villains.

Batman is a unique case in that he has been both 'fun' and serious, but the 'fun' or more accurately campy Batman has been discredited in popular culture, mostly because once people became bored of the Adam West show they turned against campy superheroes. I must stress that camp is not the same thing as fun.

All superheroes should be taken seriously but not all superheroes should be serious.

 

[Octoberist]

The Flash's tone should be tongue in cheek. It doesn't mean cheesy or ham fisted.

I think many people here can agree that Flash shouldn't be super serious. But fun with dramatic beats. Green Lantern failed not because of it's concept but due to bland directing and awful writing; we shouldn't let that discourage light hearted superhero films in the future.

 

[JAK®]

Green Lantern failed not because of it's concept but due to bland directing and awful writing; we shouldn't let that discourage light hearted superhero films in the future.

Really? You mean if a film is bad that doesn't mean everything about it was bad? That writing and direction matter more than the details?

You're crazy.

 

[Airwings]

There is no correlation between tone and quality. Your opinion is flawed.[/I]

From what I have seen, the more serious a superhero film is, the better it is.
Fun element distracts from the story if there are too many of them.

 

[JAK®]

From what I have seen, the more serious a superhero film is, the better it is.
Fun element distracts from the story if there are too many of them.

Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Octoberist]

Really? You mean if a film is bad that doesn't mean everything about it was bad? That writing and direction matter more than the details?

You're crazy.

You're co-co crazy.

You're thinking in absolutes and painting in broad strokes. There are tons bad movies out there where they might have awesome concepts or moments of greatness, but just failed due to overall execution. Those types of movies,like Green Lantern, are more heartbreaking because they never reached its true potential and rather be average as all hell.

Unless you were being facetious and had to explain to the most basic level of criticisms, I demand a cookie!