Which do you prefer so far DCCU or DC TVU (live action)?

[Isildur´s Heir]

I'm all for DC, but the movies are way behind Marvel's. Man of Steel and Batman vs Superman are horrible...haven't watched Suicide Squad.

As for tv shows, i only watched the first 2 seasons of Arrow, and i thought it was Batman with a bow and arrow; and Gotham, which is fun as a Elseworld type of deal, not as direct adaptation of Batman is any way or form.

 

[Batmannerism]

I've always felt the exact opposite, which is why I was able to appreciate a movie like BvS. Even though I hated the film's versions of Lex and Wonder Woman, it tried to do something important. Too much silliness and self-deprecation leads to a film like Ant-Man, which seemed apologetic for existing. I can accept many flaws as long as the film is trying to maintain the illusion. Movies and TV that constantly wink at the camera often become a chore to watch and rarely hold up well. All of the Marvel Netflix shows are grim, but they work very well.

While I'll agree that DC TV is brighter, it also takes itself seriously when necessary. Flash didn't shy away from the essence of Gorilla Grodd because some viewers may have held the preconceived notion that a hyper-intelligent, psionic gorilla was a silly concept. His appearances have been terrifying, and I have so much respect for that. Likewise, Supergirl presented the Green Martian-White Martian war as not only important, but the show went the extra mile in showing the viewer that there were Green Martian concentration camps where child Martians were slaughtered. As grim as that was, it has been absolutely essential to J'onn's development on the show.

So while I agree that the DCEU is at a point where it could show a slightly more optimistic world with the JL forming, I don't want to see crap like heroes dancing in front of a supervillain. Let's not Batman '66-ize the DCEU make it disposable fluff.

Respect your opinion Dude, but I see things differently. Superhero movies are entertainment, which means they need to be.....entertaining. Well much more so than try to do something "important" I mean, it's one of the most escapist genres out there. The reason the shows succeed is that they're entertaining first and foremost.

But that's just IMO of course.

 

[wnjcwjkk]

I tried a couple eps of Arrow and Gotham, and just couldn't get into them, which is a shame because I love DC characters and watching a good series is one of my favorite pastimes. Idk, maybe I'll give them another shot when I'm looking for something to watch. They just don't feel authentic to me. Like, when I watched Gotham I didn't feel like I was watching Bruce Wayne, Selina Kile, Jim Gordon. They just seemed like characters in some show who had those names. And I love Batman mythology.


So far, the only comic series I've gotten into and enjoyed was DareDevil. That felt to me like I was watching DareDevil bought to life, not some off brand version. I really hope DC comes around and makes a few series that are connected to the DCEU, with the same tone and visual faithfulness to the source material. A good 10-13 episode high quality series. Gotham Central, Nightwing, something like that. Doesn't seem likely though, since they have separate TV and movie universes, but I don't think there would be any worry about confusion if they were to release a show that's connected to the DCEU brand and not the DCTV.

 

[wnjcwjkk]

Respect your opinion Dude, but I see things differently. Superhero movies are entertainment, which means they need to be.....entertaining. Well much more so than try to do something "important" I mean, it's one of the most escapist genres out there. The reason the shows succeed is that they're entertaining first and foremost.

But that's just IMO of course.

I respect your opinion, but my problem with that line of thinking is that not every superhero movie has to fit the same mold. Just like with Westerns, there's room for some more serious films like Unforgiven, along with the more standard white hat/black hat escapist fun like Magnificent Seven. The superhero genre could be a really great platform for a more allegorical or philosophical story, something that makes you think. Those are some of the greatest sci fi movies, like Blade Runner or 2001 A Space Odyssey. No reason they can't aim for that with some of the Superhero flicks, to offer some variety.

 

[2kt09]

I tried a couple eps of Arrow and Gotham, and just couldn't get into them, which is a shame because I love DC characters and watching a good series is one of my favorite pastimes. Idk, maybe I'll give them another shot when I'm looking for something to watch. They just don't feel authentic to me. Like, when I watched Gotham I didn't feel like I was watching Bruce Wayne, Selina Kile, Jim Gordon. They just seemed like characters in some show who had those names. And I love Batman mythology.

Arrow gets worse after the first few seasons and then finds its groove back in the latest. The mindset going into Arrow should generally be Green Arrow Nolan-ized.

Gotham gets better. Practically an elseworlds Gotham Central, but from the POV of Gordon, Bullock, Bruce, Selina, Penguin and the rest of the pre-Batman characters/villains filtered through the lens of Burton/Schumacher.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

I've always felt the exact opposite, which is why I was able to appreciate a movie like BvS. Even though I hated the film's versions of Lex and Wonder Woman, it tried to do something important. Too much silliness and self-deprecation leads to a film like Ant-Man, which seemed apologetic for existing. I can accept many flaws as long as the film is trying to maintain the illusion. Movies and TV that constantly wink at the camera often become a chore to watch and rarely hold up well. All of the Marvel Netflix shows are grim, but they work very well.

While I'll agree that DC TV is brighter, it also takes itself seriously when necessary. Flash didn't shy away from the essence of Gorilla Grodd because some viewers may have held the preconceived notion that a hyper-intelligent, psionic gorilla was a silly concept. His appearances have been terrifying, and I have so much respect for that. Likewise, Supergirl presented the Green Martian-White Martian war as not only important, but the show went the extra mile in showing the viewer that there were Green Martian concentration camps where child Martians were slaughtered. As grim as that was, it has been absolutely essential to J'onn's development on the show.

So while I agree that the DCEU is at a point where it could show a slightly more optimistic world with the JL forming, I don't want to see crap like heroes dancing in front of a supervillain. Let's not Batman '66-ize the DCEU make it disposable fluff.

When i was a younger, i always wanted to watch really serious and deep superhero movies, since i knew it would work.
That didn't changed as i grew up.
95% of superheroes are born out of tragedy, for crying out loud.

But DC overdoes it to the extreme, to the point of destroying the characters for the sake of being gritty and dark.
Batman doesn't kill and Superman is not a despot in the making.
Superman is, imo, the most frighting character in all the movie, especially when he first meets Batman and threats to kill him if he doesn't stop.
And the less a talk about Supes parents the better. Martha Kent has a "f*** the world and let it burn" attitude that borders on the psychotic.

Then we have Marvel....
Marvel strikes a much better balance between entertainment and seriousness, especially on Winter Soldier and Civil War, which are very political and make them look like the Bourne movies with superheroes.
It's great.

My biggest problem for me is the way they handle the universe.
It jumps from sagas to sagas, from big events to big events...i would like some more personal movies between those.
Civil War felt like The Avengers 2.5


But DC made perfection before the DC cinematic universe with "The Dark Knight".
The all Dark Knight trilogy is very good, but the second movie is perfection.
Could it be better?
Sure, but it plays by the rules of the first movie, so...

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Arrow gets worse after the first few seasons and then finds its groove back in the latest. The mindset going into Arrow should generally be Green Arrow Nolan-ized.

The problem with Arrow (bare in mind that i only watched the first 2 seasons) is that it's Batman with a bow and arrow, and not the Green Arrow.
Even the villains are almost all from Batman.
Even the sentence "you failed this city" is cringe worthy, since it gives too much importance to the city, making it a Gotham City wannabe.

 

[Slade W]

It wasn't a problem at all. Arrow in its first two seasons was awesome.

 

[2kt09]

The problem with Arrow (bare in mind that i only watched the first 2 seasons) is that it's Batman with a bow and arrow, and not the Green Arrow.
Even the villains are almost all from Batman.
Even the sentence "you failed this city" is cringe worthy, since it gives too much importance to the city, making it a Gotham City wannabe.

That was pretty much how I rationalized why I ended up enjoying it (same with The Flash, which reminded me of Static Shock and Spider-Man.), since an honest to goodness Batman show isn't happening. Plus, they managed to flesh out his cast and lore in an interesting enough way.
I tend to also think Green Arrow has a far more solid backstory to being Batman.

 

[Batmannerism]

I respect your opinion, but my problem with that line of thinking is that not every superhero movie has to fit the same mold. Just like with Westerns, there's room for some more serious films like Unforgiven, along with the more standard white hat/black hat escapist fun like Magnificent Seven. The superhero genre could be a really great platform for a more allegorical or philosophical story, something that makes you think. Those are some of the greatest sci fi movies, like Blade Runner or 2001 A Space Odyssey. No reason they can't aim for that with some of the Superhero flicks, to offer some variety.

Just a couple of thoughts, sort of rambling really.

First, I agree that there's room in a genre for sub-genres; interesting you brought up Unforgiven, which if anything is a kind of anti-western, kind of like in the same way The Dark Knight is actually almost an anti-superhero film because it explores the problems that Batman's approach to crime-fighting creates.

However, I think there's a point to which you can stretch the boundaries of a genre, before it becomes something else.

The superhero genre could be a really great platform for a more allegorical or philosophical story, something that makes you think.

Now that I would agree with partially, but I think we still need to be honest about the limits of superhero genre - and what it's all about, and that is entertainment first and message second.

I mean, sure, superhero movies can have messages that resonate or make us think a bit- Dark Knight certainly does, believe it or not Dr Strange has an important message which is involved with the titular character's development.

The X-Men comics have often dealt with the issue of racism, sometimes very cleverly (e.g. The graphic novel "God Love, Man Kills" when Kitty Pryde actually uses the N-word to get her point across, look it up - sadly that kind of got lost in X2, which drew heavily from that classic story). I feel like comics were a little braver then, particularly the X-Men.

Having said all that, I believe that the superhero genre still has limitations, primarily that they are entertainment, and need to be entertaining first and foremost.

When Tolkien wrote the Hobbit, he did it first and foremost to entertain his kids - some key messages about greed, the power of friendship and the ability of a person to grow beyond his self-imposed limits managed to find their way in there too - but his main objective was to tell an engaging story, rather than promote a particular set of messages (same with LOTR).

Blade Runner, when it first came out, was a mediocre success - it's only once people started to analyse some of the messages the film contained that people have come to appreciate its themes (primarily what it means to be human) and it's become a classic and culturally significant piece of cinema. As for 2001 A Space Odyssey, at the time people's reaction was WTF ? And that really hasn't changed, critics were strongly divided on it.

Both films were groundbreaking in terms of visuals, as well as their story and characters - perhaps they owe a more of their enduring power to those visuals, than the latter.

Both films are pretty pure Sci-fi, in a similar way that Interstellar was, superhero films are an action-fantasy hybrid, in the same way that Star Wars (while having elements of sci-fi) is really fantasy. While I think it's possible to incorporate meaningful messages into superhero films, much like Tolkien's Hobbit, the primary objective is to entertain.

In a very roundabout way, this gets back to where I started with the limits of the genre (some of which are economically imposed by today's studios' relentless search for the next billion dollar blockbuster). The key limitation of the superhero genre (like action films in general) is that it needs to be entertaining, and message really comes second.

Does that limitation mean that a superhero film will never have the impact of Blade runner or 2001, not necessarily - but it would have to be a pretty amazing movie, period.

Just a final thought, IMO sometimes when superhero movies forget that they are first and foremost entertainment, they can feel bloated with a sense of self-importance that seems out of place ( I 'm sure we could think of a couple of movies like that). The whole attempt to try and do something "important" is a mistake IMO, instead superhero stories should stick to telling good stories first and if they manage to work in a serious or thought provoking message, that's great.

I think DrCosmic was spot on when he said

he DCEU is, on a very serious level, attempting to copy the success of the The Dark Knight trilogy, without fully understanding why it was successful. TDK doesn't stand up to many of the criticisms leveled against the DCEU, actually. They played fast and loose with comic concepts and essentially made a crime thriller out of Batman. But it worked because it didn't take itself overly seriously, even though it took itself deadly seriously. It still had funny moments, it still let the material breathe. The movie was not the motif, it was deeper than that.

Anyway, fortunately the world is a big enough place to accommodate all our views. Cheers.

 

[Osiris-Rex]

Just my personal opinion but I think the most recent version of Superman on TV did a much better job of presenting what Superman is supposed to be all about than the most recent movie versions did.
Optimistic, hopeful, in a stable relationship with Lois Lane, but also a bit arrogant and one sided in his interactions with J'onn J'onzz. And his Clark seemed to be a better reporter too. Just felt like he was
more comfortable in his own skin.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

Just my personal opinion but I think the most recent version of Superman on TV did a much better job of presenting what Superman is supposed to be all about than the most recent movie versions did.
Optimistic, hopeful, in a stable relationship with Lois Lane, but also a bit arrogant and one sided in his interactions with J'onn J'onzz. And his Clark seemed to be a better reporter too. Just felt like he was
more comfortable in his own skin.

Can't compare the two.

Cavill Superman has only been active as a superhero for 18 months as of Batman V Superman.

Hoechlin Superman is 10 years deep in his superhero career.

It's like comparing '87 Michael Jordan to '96 Michael Jordan.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

The DCTV, easily.
I simply dismissed Arrow, it didn't make me frustrated, and I love Oliver Queen.

Why are we ignoring the Vertigo shows? We should include Lucifer, iZombie and Preacher to that DCTV list, shouldn't we?

Honestly, I don't find this inclusion to be necessary.
SHAZAM movie (assuming it does see the light of day) will be separate from the DCEU films, although the character is part of the expansive DC comics universe.
I can count Supergirl as part of the DCTV expansive multiverse since The Flash did cross to that world, his appearance is not a filler cause an important development happens to Shoeban, and his appearance is there in the recap to season 1.
I can also count Constantine since he appeared in Arrow.
Gotham on the other hand, I don't count it.

 

[Batmannerism]

Just my personal opinion but I think the most recent version of Superman on TV did a much better job of presenting what Superman is supposed to be all about than the most recent movie versions did.
Optimistic, hopeful, in a stable relationship with Lois Lane, but also a bit arrogant and one sided in his interactions with J'onn J'onzz. And his Clark seemed to be a better reporter too. Just felt like he was
more comfortable in his own skin.

Don't think you're alone in that dude, I feel exactly the same way about TV Superman.

Can't compare the two.

Cavill Superman has only been active as a superhero for 18 months as of Batman V Superman.

Hoechlin Superman is 10 years deep in his superhero career.

It's like comparing '87 Michael Jordan to '96 Michael Jordan.

Yeah, you have a point - but there's another way to look at it: screentime.

From that angle, Tyler Hoechlin was more likeable as Superman in 2 x 45 minute TV episodes, as a guest star, than Henry Cavill was in 2 feature length films in which he was a title character. I don't blame Cavill for that, he's a good actor, I blame the writers and director for giving him such underwhelming material to work with. Just another way to look at it.

 

[famicommander]

iZombie is better than any other live action DC anything.

 

[Luke234]

I think MOS and BVS are masterpieces and I've watched them both over and over. I've seen suicide squad once and thought it was bad. I thought the look of the characters and some depictions were really cool. I even liked what I saw about the Joker. But for me the big bad and the trash in the sky felt like really low stakes danger and because of so many characters it didn't seem to have much development in that category for me. Having said all that I'm eager to see it again because I just love " world building" and appreciate the visuals.
I agree with what some others have said that early on Arrow was really good. I enjoyed the flash but I've always found it a tad more cheesy. Supergirl I thought was really goofy but a guilty pleasure. I really don't like the superman in that show though. I really love the Cavill depiction. I respect that some people didn't get what they wanted with an often sad superman but for me it's what has made him so likeable.
He's led a mostly extremely lonely life up until 33 years old not having a strong friendship. By keeping a secret of who he is he misrepresents himself for his entire existence. He knows nothing else.
That's a lot to get over. I think they always planned to get him to a happier place. He needs to feel accepted. I like that despite all the power he seems vulnerable in this way. But I'm not a comic reader so I wasn't wishing for a certain depiction.

 

[Batmannerism]

I think MOS and BVS are masterpieces and I've watched them both over and over. I've seen suicide squad once and thought it was bad. I thought the look of the characters and some depictions were really cool. I even liked what I saw about the Joker. But for me the big bad and the trash in the sky felt like really low stakes danger and because of so many characters it didn't seem to have much development in that category for me. Having said all that I'm eager to see it again because I just love " world building" and appreciate the visuals.
I agree with what some others have said that early on Arrow was really good. I enjoyed the flash but I've always found it a tad more cheesy. Supergirl I thought was really goofy but a guilty pleasure. I really don't like the superman in that show though. I really love the Cavill depiction. I respect that some people didn't get what they wanted with an often sad superman but for me it's what has made him so likeable.
He's led a mostly extremely lonely life up until 33 years old not having a strong friendship. By keeping a secret of who he is he misrepresents himself for his entire existence. He knows nothing else.
That's a lot to get over. I think they always planned to get him to a happier place. He needs to feel accepted. I like that despite all the power he seems vulnerable in this way. But I'm not a comic reader so I wasn't wishing for a certain depiction.

Respect your opinion dude and thanks for expressing it, because that's what this thread is all about.

Dude, I enjoyed a lot of the same things about Man of Steel - and I liked that it was a different take on Superman. However, I think B v S got it totally wrong. It took all the things that didn't really work about Man of Steel and emphasized them, but at the same time it jettisoned everything that
worked really well about Man of Steel. Hey, yeah 33 years of hiding and introspection, but at the end of the film he's Superman, time for brooding is over, time to get on with saving the world - Superman's indecision about his heroics was what MOS was about, by the time B v S came around, he shouldn't have had any doubts - that whole 5 minutes of exile was ridiculous IMO.

I thought that a Superman who had facial hair, helped his mom with the dishes, worked blue collar jobs, went to church and watched football was a nice change from Reeve's Clark Kent.

I mean, the Smallville battle scene is still the best superhero fight scene IMO - although I loved Cap v Iron Man from Civil War. But Smallville is a very well scripted fight with a strong narrative - all of Snyder's fights in B v S are just too messy for me, they feel like they're just a bunch of punching and then someone's down (except Superman's kamikaze charge at the end, that was good ).

Anyway, ultimately I preferred the TV Superman because he was capable of being tough but also likeable too (like how he winks at that family after he saves them from the killer drone). He didn't take any **** from Martian Manhunter or anyone else, but wasn't afraid to smile or look like he was enjoying himself.

There was one moment in B v S where I thought the real (well okay, for me the "real" Superman) shone through. It's where Clark's at the party, and he sees the factory fire on the news. A serious look crosses his face,
like he's thinking "This is a job for SUPERMAN !"
and he reaches to loosen his tie -next thing we see he's flying the little girl to safety.

WTF didn't they spend some time on showing him saving her (and other people) and instead of having him float above the people in the flood, show him saving them ? Also, at the start he shows up at the warlord's compound and saves Lois.....and then just leaves ? He doesn't disarm anyone else or stick around to see if everyone else is okay ?

That would have built up some more positivity around the character.

I think Cavill's a good actor, but they give him **** to work with - it's no surprise he doesn't come out looking great IMO.

Look, these sorts of discussions have been going for a while, and they'll probably never be resolved. Glad to hear you enjoyed B v S though, wish I did too.

Don't get me wrong, a serious Superman can be very compelling ( e.g. Kingdom Come, if you don't read comics, that's cool, but if you ever want to, check out that one !). Cheers.

 

[NotNickFury]

iZombie is better than any other live action DC anything.

Yes. This I fully agree with in every way. As much as I love Flash, Legends, and the like, I think iZombie is much better written than any of the Berlanti DCCW shows. And all the sappy romantic drama that drags those shows down, I think iZombie actually manages to handle those elements right.

It has all of those sad moments filled with musical cues and relationship drama, but they don't come off as cliche or sappy compared to what we get on any of the DCCW shows. To talk leads specifically, I also just think that Rose McIver has more range than someone like Melissa Benoist, for example, based on her work in dramas like Masters of Sex.

 

[2kt09]

Yes. This I fully agree with in every way. As much as I love Flash, Legends, and the like, I think iZombie is much better written than any of the Berlanti DCCW shows. And all the sappy romantic drama that drags those shows down, I think iZombie actually manages to handle those elements right.

It has all of those sad moments filled with musical cues and relationship drama, but they don't come off as cliche or sappy compared to what we get on any of the DCCW shows. To talk leads specifically, I also just think that Rose McIver has more range than someone like Melissa Benoist, for example, based on her work in dramas like Masters of Sex.

I need to get back on iZombie since I too think it's the best of the CW cbtv shows. Hip hip hooray for the Veronica Mars creators for running that ship.
I haven't seen enough of Benoist's acting, but that's not really saying much even if you wanted to compare more than female leads. Plus, McIver has to play a range of characters on top of effortlessly delivering her base character.

 

[MbJ]

DC TV. It has its problems but this thread is basically asking if I like milkshakes or urine smoothies.

 

[Batmannerism]

DC TV. It has its problems but this thread is basically asking if I like milkshakes or urine smoothies.

That's hilarious (unless you're Bear Grylls, who would probably take a moment to think about the choice)
.... but there are folks who seriously prefer the films, and I think it's good to hear from them, just to get some perspective.

I mean, you're totally right that the shows have some problems, and some pretty cringe-worthy moments ( pretty much all the Iris stuff in season 1 of Flash, just for starters) but does that hit the depths of the "Martha" moment, or most of Suicide Squad ? I say no, but it's interesting hearing from folks who reacted differently.

 

[wnjcwjkk]

I kinda wish DC would start a third live action universe, it seems obvious that the majority of comic fans and the General Audience want something particular out of the big blockbuster films that's a little less thoughtful, and I don't mean that in a pretentious way, I think it's great what Marvel and Fox are delivering, but my top six favorites (Watchmen, Dark Knight Trilogy, and the Snyder Superman films) are the ones that approach the material as Kubrick or Coppola would, as a serious drama with complex, realistic characters and deeper social themes.

And the DCTV shows cater episodic, 22 episode, more simplistic, action fan base.

I'd love to see a DC universe, starting with Batman and Superman, that is geared towards the more presigious (again, not in a pretentious way), 12 episode serious, complex, more gritty, darker character based series on a channel like AMC or HBO (Sopranos, The Wire, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, The Shield, Boardwalk Empire, etc.)

It's the perfect time to do so. This era in TV has been referred to as Peak TV, with so many great high quality series being produced, on cable, pay channels, streaming services, that people are having trouble keeping up with them, so to have a show with name recognition like Batman, people would watch.

I think people would be much more open to them exploring the character psychology and having a dark, serious tone in a series as opposed to a film, where people wait two years for 2.5 hours of footage, where they have set expectations. I think that's a problem with BvS, they tried to explore so much and examine all these themes and be so many different things, that it fell flat for people. But, a series with 12 hours to work with, they would have so much more freedom and time to take a step back and explore different aspects, and really get into the character and theme development, and still keep it action packed. DareDevil is the perfect template for that kind of series, and probably my favorite thing Marvel has done. You get to not only really get inside the mind of Matt Murdock, but also Kingpin and the supporting cast, and they hold take an entire episode to work on just one aspect of the character development or particular theme or flashback.

And there's a huge audience for a serious, darker, fantasy show. Just look at Game Of Thrones or Walking Dead. Can you imagine the type of cult following a high quality GameOfThrones-esque series about Batman (and Gordon and Harvey Dent, Vicki Vale, Bullock, Montoya, etc.) would gain? That could easily be one of the most successful cable or HBO series. Then, they could just use the films to placate the masses and offer fun, lighthearted, popcorn flicks, and those of us who want something with more substance would be happy as well.


And I say, why not give it a shot? They're gonna have two separate Flashes at the same time. It's like they feel like they have to maneuver around using the big characters, to save them for film I guess, and offer shows like Smallville and Gotham, that's kinda sorta but not really at all a Superman/Batman story, but why not a serious, high quality, true to the source material, show that uses their big properties? I guarantee nobody would complain. And then we'd all have something involving our favorite characters that is geared towards our particular desires from a superhero story.

 

[Batmannerism]

As with everyone, I respect your opinion - but definitely have to agree to disagree on a few things.

I think it's great what Marvel and Fox are delivering, but my top six favorites (Watchmen, Dark Knight Trilogy, and the Snyder Superman films) are the ones that approach the material as Kubrick or Coppola would, as a serious drama with complex, realistic characters and deeper social themes.

IMO nothing Snyder has done or will ever do can approach Kubrick or Coppola, even at their worst.

Snyder has some real talent for visuals and action/fight scenes. But those guys are legendary storytellers, true artists. Sorry, I just don't think he's that good- don't get me wrong, he's okay, and Man of Steel was a good movie.

The main reason Watchmen is any good is because Snyder wisely sticks to the source material -and when you work with gold it's hard not to shine. Sure, he could have ****ed it up, but thankfully didn't - still wouldn't say it's on the same level as the work of those you have mentioned.

Christopher Nolan is a different story. He's not quite Kubrick ( Interstellar was close to being a millenium 2001: A Space Odyssey, but fell a little bit short). Inception was really groundbreaking in many ways and the Dark Knight Trilogy is still IMO the best superhero movie (although Civil War is very close). Nolan has moments when he can punch at the same weight class as Kubrick and Coppola. The guy is an artist, there's no denying that, and has shown real mastery of non-linear storytelling.

And there's a huge audience for a serious, darker, fantasy show. Just look at Game Of Thrones or Walking Dead. Can you imagine the type of cult following a high quality GameOfThrones-esque series about Batman (and Gordon and Harvey Dent, Vicki Vale, Bullock, Montoya, etc.) would gain? That could easily be one of the most successful cable or HBO series. Then, they could just use the films to placate the masses and offer fun, lighthearted, popcorn flicks, and those of us who want something with more substance would be happy as well.

Look, I don't usually break up people's posts, but you make a lot of interesting points, and I need to address them separately.

Anyway, you're dead right about the market for darker fantasy -although clearly there's a market for lighter superhero stuff too (which is why the Berlanti shows are still around). Here's my opinion, you're right that a Game of Thrones esque DC series could be a massive hit.....but that sort of program would probably be more suited to the DC Vertigo books - particularly Constantine ( I mean, they were wayyyy too restrained with his tv series, which probably helped kill it).

As for a GOT series around Batman..... hmmmm maybe, some of Batman's stuff can be very dark (I'm thinking the Court/City of Owls and Joker stuff from New 52, and some of Morrison's Batman incorporated). The problem is that Gotham, which is sort of the wannabe GOT Batman show is pretty mediocre. It's certainly my least favorite of all the DC based shows - partially because I don't really like prequels (and don't think Gordon is an interesting enough character to carry the series) - just bring on Batman already !

Also, like Constantine, Gotham has a lot of dark stuff in it, but doesn't go the same lengths as GOT in terms of adult material. I kind of think you have to
go either all the way ( full GOT torture, murder, incest etc) or none of the way ( like the Flash and Supergirl) in terms of having serious elements - but when you half-ass it, it doesn't work (just my opinion).

I loved Bruno Heller's ROME series - but he's dialed Gotham wayyy back from that. As a result, I don't think it works.

Also, how much do we really care about the B-team ? Agents of Shield has started introducing mainstream Marvel superheroes e.g. Ghost Rider, in order to keep things moving) I mean, we could probably deal with a show that focused on young Bruce Wayne and his training (kind of like Smallville was about Kal El becoming Superman), which featured the Bat rogues gallery and Gordon - but do we really care that much about the backstory of the Riddler for more than a few episodes (or maybe a single season). I do think that Robin Lord Taylor is amazing as the Penguin, but that's still not enough to carry a show IMO). I'll admit I've been wrong about every superhero movie prediction I've made this, but I doubt Gotham will see more than 5 seasons tops because the audience will stop caring and will start asking "Where's Batman ? "

As for the more colourful superheroes, particularly Superman, I don't think those characters work if you try to make them too dark. I agree with what Matthew Vaughn said about Superman, and Nolan's approach to Batman:

“What I said is Nolan is very good at doing what he did with Batman, and the subject matter of Batman deserved to be dark, but there are other superheroes, like I don’t think Superman should be dark. The clue’s in the costume, what it should be like…You have to always respect source material, and if you’re going to reinvent it, reinvent it in a way that’s done in respect, not just for the sake of doing it.”

That's from a guy who made arguably the best X-Men movie, Kick Ass and of course Kingsman. His films can be funny but also extremely violent and quite adult, but most importantly are escapism - let's face it, superheroes are a genre that's totally about escapism (wanting to transcend human limitations and fallibilities and make the world a better place).


I kind of see the Flash in the same way that Vaughn describes Superman, he's not a character who's dark - I mean he has as much, if not more, tragedy than any other superhero, but he himself remains upbeat and positive.

And I say, why not give it a shot? They're gonna have two separate Flashes at the same time. It's like they feel like they have to maneuver around using the big characters, to save them for film I guess, and offer shows like Smallville and Gotham, that's kinda sorta but not really at all a Superman/Batman story, but why not a serious, high quality, true to the source material, show that uses their big properties? I guarantee nobody would complain. And then we'd all have something involving our favorite characters that is geared towards our particular desires from a superhero story.

IMO, a very serious or dark show about Superman won't work because if you're being true to the source material it can't be that dark and couldn't be completely serious ( and I think Batman v Superman is reasonable proof of that). Maybe it would work for Batman, but not Supes (hell, Man of Steel is a lot lighter in tone than Batman v Superman, and it only got a mixed reaction from critics and fans).

But hey, that's just my opinion.

 

[Set]

TV > Movies, but my real preferences for on-screen DC superhero fare is Cartoons > TV > movies.

The Young Justice cartoon, in particular, is up there with actual comic books like PADs Young Justice, or Perez & Wolfman's Teen Titans, for great superhero fare.

 

[Fincher]

For me, there's so many factors at work in a movie/TV show in terms of genre, tone, casting, plot, etc. that there's no way at all to group everything into one of two possible categories and then choose one. Some people do seem to largely approach superhero films in that way where they choose Type A (Batman v Superman) over Type B (The Avengers), and okay for them, but...Boardwalk Empire is one of my favorite TV shows, but I quit Penny Dreadful after three episodes because I just wasn't enjoying it. I certainly like the idea of an HBO Batman show, but I wouldn't actually know until I saw it whether it was more like Boardwalk Empire or more like Penny Dreadful, not in terms of specific characteristics but in terms of a show that works for me or a show that doesn't.

Similarly, Batman Begins ranks among my favorite superhero films, The Dark Knight was good but not on the same level for me, The Dark Knight Rises was pretty good but another step down, and I didn't care for Batman v Superman. I really like Iron Man 2 but not The Avengers. It just depends.