Titans Titans General Discussion Thread - Part 1

Mixed feelings about this series too, after watching the first episode. I liked Ravens and Robins characterization (looking forward to see what exactly Batman does that Robin does not aprove), hated with all my guts Starfire. The "lets make her a hooker so everyone knows is gritty" approach doesn't work with me, and personally not a fan of her aesthetics either.

Actions scenes were good but dialogue needs a lot of improvement.
 

DC Comics News New York Comic Con 2018 Roundtable Interviews -


Titans-Featured.jpg



Brenton Thwaites





Anna Diop




Ryan Potter



Teagan Croft



Alan Ritchson



Minka Kelly



Akiva Goldsman



Greg Walker




Source -
NYCC 2018: TITANS Roundtable Interviews
 
Last edited:
I think the movie didn't deal with those actions in him killing or address it, and deal with the consequences of it. Him getting a chance to save Martha isn't also what I'd call a healthy coping mechanism either. I think it's maintaining the idea of his trauma and not allowing him to try and heal. Even after he sees the chance to do that he still kills though.

I disagree. The movie has characters like Alfred, citizens of Gotham, the media, and Superman all speak out or confront Batman about his brutality. It's behavior that is not endorsed by the movie or treated as if it was okay if it continued unchecked. Getting to save Martha isn't a coping mechanism. It's a start.

Before, as Batman told Superman, his actions were driven by a need to force the world to make sense. We hear from him earlier in the opening monologue that since his parents' deaths and becoming Batman, he held the mentality that what falls is fallen. These were the poor coping mechanisms that showed their flaws in the face of the existential threat that was the unchanging nature of Gotham, the death of a Robin, and the arrival of dangerous Kryptonians. He felt powerless. What "Save Martha" does it wake Batman up long enough to see the truth of what he had become, like an intervention, but the hard work of recovery was still going to be a process.

It starts with him keeping his promise to save Martha. Yes, he is brutal in the warehouse fight, but he hasn't yet succeded in saving Martha and his road to recovery has just begun. What helped it along more was the selfless sacrifice Superman made and the world's reaction to that sacrifice. In those acts, he saw an example of true heroism and that people could change. Next we hear from Batman, he is telling Diana that he's changed his mind. Men who fall aren't irreperably fallen. Men are still good and can do better. He shows us that when he chooses not to brand Lex. He continues to make amends and to create a support network for himself by helping Martha and Clark in Justice League and by surrounding himself with friends and allies.

Now, he is no longer alone. Now he knows that he can fall into darkness and recover. Now he has hope.

Mixed feelings about this series too, after watching the first episode. I liked Ravens and Robins characterization (looking forward to see what exactly Batman does that Robin does not aprove), hated with all my guts Starfire. The "lets make her a hooker so everyone knows is gritty" approach doesn't work with me, and personally not a fan of her aesthetics either.

As far as I'm aware from some minimal exposure to the character and a quick Google search, Starfire's backstory typically involves a period in which she is enslaved. Other notes in the entries I read mentioned her losing memories in one story and even killing someone (one of her captors, I believe). Finally, as has been widely reported, Starfire's outfit is not her final or iconic outfit. It's just what she's wearing right now because she is being experimented on and exploited by others, just like her comics counterpart. She is not yet herself. It's fortunate that plenty of people who watched the pilot came away thinking Starfire was a beautiful and entertaining highlight. I certainly did.

The choices made for Starfire aren't as simple as "make it gritty" either, since it's obvious that the first season is focused on the theme of escaping one's dark past through the help of new friends, a found family of sorts. Dick is dealing with his split from a brutal Batman. Raven is dealing with a demon inside her she can't control. Koriand'r is dealing with being mistreated and used for evil purposes. To start in the darkness and journey forward into the light is a hopeful story about redemption, second chances, and friendship. It gives the team, the Titan, meaning and purpose.
 
Last edited:
Can we lay off the Batman is a killer aspect? I remember (post BvS) all the complaints about Batman not being a killer, which is BS. Batman has been a killer in some comics, whilst in others he hasn't. I guess it all depends on which comic you (as a writer) are taking inspiration from; there's so many of them out there with multiple reboots and reimagining's.

I think the issue really is that in the vast, vast, VAST majority of Batman fiction he is not a killer, and yet live action versions disproportionately depict him as one. It’s so damn tired and boring. Quite why they keep doing this, I have no idea.

...Oh no. Wait. Yes I do. It’s easier than exploring why he doesn’t kill.
 
I think the issue really is that in the vast, vast, VAST majority of Batman fiction he is not a killer, and yet live action versions disproportionately depict him as one. It’s so damn tired and boring. Quite why they keep doing this, I have no idea.

...Oh no. Wait. Yes I do. It’s easier than exploring why he doesn’t kill.
It makes sense because the limitations put forth on cartoons/comics.
It's just less cinematic and makes less sense than why Green Arrow would develop a no kill rule.
 
As far as I'm aware from some minimal exposure to the character and a quick Google search, Starfire's backstory typically involves a period in which she is enslaved. Other notes in the entries I read mentioned her losing memories in one story and even killing someone (one of her captors, I believe). Finally, as has been widely reported, Starfire's outfit is not her final or iconic outfit. It's just what she's wearing right now because she is being experimented on and exploited by others, just like her comics counterpart. She is not yet herself. It's fortunate that plenty of people who watched the pilot came away thinking Starfire was a beautiful and entertaining highlight. I certainly did.

Sorry, but i cannot be an apologist to what they did to the character. It is the cheapest looking character and personally i don't like the casting.

The choices made for Starfire aren't as simple as "make it gritty" either, since it's obvious that the first season is focused on the theme of escaping one's dark past through the help of new friends, a found family of sorts. Dick is dealing with his split from a brutal Batman. Raven is dealing with a demon inside her she can't control. Koriand'r is dealing with being mistreated and used for evil purposes. To start in the darkness and journey forward into the light is a hopeful story about redemption, second chances, and friendship. It gives the team, the Titan, meaning and purpose.

It's obviously an attempt to make it more gritty. Koriandr already is an exiled princess from her homeworld, why trying to force empathy with a stupid origin nonsensical story?
 
Sorry, but i cannot be an apologist to what they did to the character. It is the cheapest looking character and personally i don't like the casting.

I'm not being an apologist. One can't apologize for what was done to a character when NOTHING was done to it that hasn't been a part of her backstory for awhile and is something that is meant as a starting point rather than an endpoint. Thanks for the response, though, because I can now more clearly see where you're coming because of what you didn't say, or what's between the lines, than what you did say. I think it's sad that you're missing out on appreciating the character most critics and viewers thought was the best part of the show so far.

It's obviously an attempt to make it more gritty. Koriandr already is an exiled princess from her homeworld, why trying to force empathy with a stupid origin nonsensical story?

Nah, and she's not just an exile in the comics. She's someone who endures slavery and torture, a vengeful sister, and who kills one of her captors and tormentors. This is about more than empathy. It's about fidelity to the source material and taking characters on a journey that makes the team and the story a powerful and transformative one. So, yeah, agree to disagree.
 
I disagree. The movie has characters like Alfred, citizens of Gotham, the media, and Superman all speak out or confront Batman about his brutality. It's behavior that is not endorsed by the movie or treated as if it was okay if it continued unchecked. Getting to save Martha isn't a coping mechanism. It's a start.

Before, as Batman told Superman, his actions were driven by a need to force the world to make sense. We hear from him earlier in the opening monologue that since his parents' deaths and becoming Batman, he held the mentality that what falls is fallen. These were the poor coping mechanisms that showed their flaws in the face of the existential threat that was the unchanging nature of Gotham, the death of a Robin, and the arrival of dangerous Kryptonians. He felt powerless. What "Save Martha" does it wake Batman up long enough to see the truth of what he had become, like an intervention, but the hard work of recovery was still going to be a process.

It starts with him keeping his promise to save Martha. Yes, he is brutal in the warehouse fight, but he hasn't yet succeded in saving Martha and his road to recovery has just begun. What helped it along more was the selfless sacrifice Superman made and the world's reaction to that sacrifice. In those acts, he saw an example of true heroism and that people could change. Next we hear from Batman, he is telling Diana that he's changed his mind. Men who fall aren't irreperably fallen. Men are still good and can do better. He shows us that when he chooses not to brand Lex. He continues to make amends and to create a support network for himself by helping Martha and Clark in Justice League and by surrounding himself with friends and allies.

Now, he is no longer alone. Now he knows that he can fall into darkness and recover. Now he has hope.
They don't address Batman killing. I think it's not an real start.

But for that entire mindset to be undone like that doesn't seem like a legitimate way to deal with the mental illness the movie seems to want to develop Bruce having.

Superman isn't special in that way. People do that too.

He wasn't alone before.
 
I'm not being an apologist. One can't apologize for what was done to a character when NOTHING was done to it that hasn't been a part of her backstory for awhile and is something that is meant as a starting point rather than an endpoint. Thanks for the response, though, because I can now more clearly see where you're coming because of what you didn't say, or what's between the lines, than what you did say. I think it's sad that you're missing out on appreciating the character most critics and viewers thought was the best part of the show so far.

Look up for the word apologist, you have the wrong idea of what it means. I'm not against redesigning origins to accomodate a good narrative, but don't see the sense of a amnesiac alien hooker. Or maybe I don't see the appeal, given what could have been done with the character.

What I didn't said or is read between the lines?

Nah, and she's not just an exile in the comics. She's someone who endures slavery and torture, a vengeful sister, and who kills one of her captors and tormentors. This is about more than empathy. It's about fidelity to the source material and taking characters on a journey that makes the team and the story a powerful and transformative one. So, yeah, agree to disagree.

Exactly, but why make a travesty of her origin just to make it more gritty? It's so edgy that ends up being campy. I think we agree to disagree both of us!
 
They don't address Batman killing. I think it's not an real start.

Batman's fall wasn't defined solely by killing, though. It's as Bruce says, "Men still good. We fight. We kill. We betray one another. But we can rebuild. We can do better. We will. We have to."

But for that entire mindset to be undone like that doesn't seem like a legitimate way to deal with the mental illness the movie seems to want to develop Bruce having.

Speaking as someone with a master's in counseling psychology, I can tell you for a fact that exposure therapy is a big part of treating PTSD. Reliving a traumatic experiences and demonstrating mastery over the source of trauma is critical part of coping as is a support system like making amends with old friends (Alfred) and making new friends (Diana).

Superman isn't special in that way. People do that too.

Bruce's mental illness was linked to Superman, so his sacrifice had more meaning.

He wasn't alone before.

He had Alfred, and he was pushing him away.
 
Look up for the word apologist, you have the wrong idea of what it means. I'm not against redesigning origins to accomodate a good narrative, but don't see the sense of a amnesiac alien hooker. Or maybe I don't see the appeal, given what could have been done with the character.

I know what it means. I means to offer an argument to defend something controversial. You don't get to decide what's controversial. Most reviews praised Starfire. You are in the minority. Starfire isn't a hooker. She is being used by people, so she has no choice as to what she is or what she's doing right now, and most, if not all of that, is part of her backstory in the comics.

What I didn't said or is read between the lines?

Yeah. You didn't say explicitly what you didn't like about Diop, but since most of your complaints are about character or her wardrobe, yet you complained about her without elaborating suggests there might be something else going on. I'll leave it at that.

Exactly, but why make a travesty of her origin just to make it more gritty? It's so edgy that ends up being campy. I think we agree to disagree both of us!

It's not a travesty. It's practically exactly the same! It wasn't done for grit. It was done for a rich character arc that's about hope and family. That's not edgy.
 
well, here's a non-comic book fan/casual viewer's opinion.

My dad fits into that category. When I asked if he wanted to watch the new Titans tv series, he asked who are they? lol. I basically explained that it's Robin's team of heroes, since Robin is the only character he's familiar with.

Well, he watched it last night, and he said he liked it. It's just as good as the other comic shows he watches ( Arrow, Flash, Supergirl, Daredevil ). He didn't have a problem with the violence or gore or "FU" Batman and he was interested in the characters and where the story will take them.

I was surprised because I didn't think he'd like it. but he did. :)
 
Batman's fall wasn't defined solely by killing, though. It's as Bruce says, "Men still good. We fight. We kill. We betray one another. But we can rebuild. We can do better. We will. We have to."

Speaking as someone with a master's in counseling psychology, I can tell you for a fact that exposure therapy is a big part of treating PTSD. Reliving a traumatic experiences and demonstrating mastery over the source of trauma is critical part of coping as is a support system like making amends with old friends (Alfred) and making new friends (Diana).

Bruce's mental illness was linked to Superman, so his sacrifice had more meaning.

He had Alfred, and he was pushing him away.
But him killing was a main consequence of it. That's not dealt with.

But those ideas, that psychology I think isn't dealt with in the movie.

Bruce's illness was a whole different set of issues.

The movie I think doesn't develop that idea. Bruce's psychology, his thought process, pushing away Alfred, his fall isn't a developed idea to me.
 
I know what it means. I means to offer an argument to defend something controversial. You don't get to decide what's controversial. Most reviews praised Starfire. You are in the minority. Starfire isn't a hooker. She is being used by people, so she has no choice as to what she is or what she's doing right now, and most, if not all of that, is part of her backstory in the comics.

Then if you know what it means, answer properly (trying to not sound aggressive here, but i wasn't apologizing or looking for an apology). I DO decide what is controversial for myself, just like you do and you have no authority to decide what i like or dislike. And her looks and casting have been subject of debate, which i coincidently define as controversial, so...

Yeah. You didn't say explicitly what you didn't like about Diop, but since most of your complaints are about character or her wardrobe, yet you complained about her without elaborating suggests there might be something else going on. I'll leave it at that.

I don't like her casting (not a fan of racial-washing in general). I don't like her looks either, because she presents the most deviation aesthetics-wise. Cannot judge her for her acting skills or portrayal for just one episode, but i must admit that wasn't enamoured with how the character was presented.

It's not a travesty. It's practically exactly the same! It wasn't done for grit. It was done for a rich character arc that's about hope and family. That's not edgy.

The magic word is "practically". So subjective. She was already a political exiled from her homeworld, persecuted by her queen-sister and comepletely alien to this new world, people and customs. But seems i am not entitled to have an opinion lol.
 
You wanted them to cast an orange alien? How do you feel about Beast Boy?

I always thought arabic or middle-eastern (olive-skin) was then way to go!


Don't like that either, but waiting up for him to be full-green. Haven't seem him in action though, just the cgi tiger!
 
I don't like her casting (not a fan of racial-washing in general). I don't like her looks either, because she presents the most deviation aesthetics-wise. Cannot judge her for her acting skills or portrayal for just one episode, but i must admit that wasn't enamoured with how the character was presented.

You can race-"wash" a character that never had any real race given to her.
 
You can race-"wash" a character that never had any real race given to her.

Ehh that's arguable. Look up images of Koriand'r in google search images and tell me if she has black skin and red super curly hair. Cannot stand this fashion of race-washing we are getting in general. Didn't like white-washing we got before and don't like the black-washing we are getting lately.
 
Ehh that's arguable. Look up images of Koriand'r in google search images and tell me if she has black skin and red super curly hair. Cannot stand this fashion of race-washing we are getting in general. Didn't like white-washing we got before and don't like the black-washing we are getting lately.
It's been a while, who were being white-washed before the black-wash? Thought the black-wash still preceded the white-wash given the whole MCDuncan Kingpin.
 
It's been a while, who were being white-washed before the black-wash? Thought the black-wash still preceded the white-wash given the whole MCDuncan Kingpin.

White-washing have been a problem in the movie industry in the past, the latest examples i can think from the top of my head are matt damon and keanu reeves in asian movies, or the Water-Tribe and Air Nomads in MN Shyalaman Last Airbender (but hey this last movie got all races wrong except the Earth Kingdom). Hank Azaria as Apu controversy is stupid imo though.
 
White-washing have been a problem in the movie industry in the past, the latest examples i can think from the top of my head are matt damon and keanu reeves in asian movies, or the Water-Tribe and Air Nomads in MN Shyalaman Last Airbender (but hey this last movie got all races wrong except the Earth Kingdom). Hank Azaria as Apu controversy is stupid imo though.
Oh, you meant the industry in general. ok.
 
Ehh that's arguable. Look up images of Koriand'r in google search images and tell me if she has black skin and red super curly hair. Cannot stand this fashion of race-washing we are getting in general. Didn't like white-washing we got before and don't like the black-washing we are getting lately.

Sure she shouldn't be black (or white cause she's orange) but we dont know if she will still become orange and if she becomes orange a black actress playing her wont be a problem (which is basically what I meant). And super curly red hair isnt a problem. Barry is blonde in the comics but he is a brunette on tv.

And if they could add more details this would probably be full of curls
8300328.jpg
 
Sure she shouldn't be black (or white cause she's orange) but we dont know if she will still become orange and if she becomes orange a black actress playing her wont be a problem (which is basically what I meant). And super curly red hair isnt a problem. Barry is blonde in the comics but he is a brunette on tv.

And if they could add more details this would probably be full of curls

I agree that she shouldn't be neither white nor black, but maybe an olive-skinned actress? Wouldn't be mad if they went for a more subtle Dr. Manhattan approach either. I don't understand why she should be changing the colour of her skin mid-series, not part of her character (I could understand why BB suffers this changes, but not SF). I don't believe they would give her that hair, given the fact that she has either curl of straight hair in the comics. But hair isn't a big nono either (will always prefer they stick to the material though), but man that hair is bad. She doesn't resembles SF at all!

The problem isn't the actress but the casting crew, clearly.
 
I agree that she shouldn't be neither white nor black, but maybe an olive-skinned actress? Wouldn't be mad if they went for a more subtle Dr. Manhattan approach either. I don't understand why she should be changing the colour of her skin mid-series, not part of her character (I could understand why BB suffers this changes, but not SF). I don't believe they would give her that hair, given the fact that she has either curl of straight hair in the comics. But hair isn't a big nono either (will always prefer they stick to the material though), but man that hair is bad. She doesn't resembles SF at all!

The problem isn't the actress but the casting crew, clearly.

She shouldn't even be olive-skinned. Starfire is orange like Mystique is Blue. So it doesnt matter what color the actress is if they make her orange. She has amnesia and lord knows what else so who knows why she would appear human.
 
She shouldn't even be olive-skinned. Starfire is orange like Mystique is Blue. So it doesnt matter what color the actress is if they make her orange. She has amnesia and lord knows what else so who knows why she would appear human.
She should have been cast by a Brazilian, as profiling as that sounds, given that's what her design was based on.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"