It isn't true to say this show does not take from the Green Arrow comics, they do. I can understand it if people say they do not take enough, or that they do not take from the comics that they should be taking from (like how Nolan took from the most acclaimed Batman comics for his movies), or that they are not adapting things well enough.
Arrow Who's done with ARROW, for killing SPOILER off?
- Thread starter Gintoki
- Start date
SM_experiment
Civilian
- Joined
- May 26, 2016
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
Except the fact the Olllie was on an island uses arrows and is green in his attire, what else is from the comics that is well represented. Again none of us said they did not take anything from the comics simply that Arrow is batclone 1.1 with arrows all the villains are changed beyond recognition, his friends are nothing like the source material and most importantly they truly never has Green Arrow on this show, simply their own batclone, named Arrow and played by Stephen Amell (aka we hired him for abs). it need mentioning twice.
Also absolutely no Black Canary in it.
I agree about a lot of the characters being different from the comics, but they do take storylines and themes from them.
SM_experiment
Civilian
- Joined
- May 26, 2016
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
So them undermining the entirity of Green Arrows themes are taking them from the comics. Them bringing in mostly Batman villains and storylines (i have only an issue with this because Green Arrow is so thouroughly missing). Them not making Black Canary a badass biker chick who kick ass and takes names but a willowing little girl angry at him for being an *******. (yes I know someone else came in to play Black Canary instead of Dinah) but it illustrates a point they are not interested in actually examining and making a show with Green Arrow in it. They are making a Batman show with arrows.
No mate, those are obviously not them taking from the Green Arrow comics. That is just daft. You seem to be a bit easily confused here. This season alone, off the top of my head, they took from the comics of Dennis O'Neil, Mike Grell and Kevin Smith (Ollie as a stay-at-home husband), and the general theme of redemption that dominates so many classic Green Arrow stories for episode 1.
For episode 2, they took from Green Arrow: Year One (Ollie infiltrating an island that was being used by a drug cartel in order to farm poppies for heroin), the Green Arrow comics of Elliot S! Maggin and Dennis O'Neil (the theme of public figures needing to be examples as well as superheroes and the idea of Ollie running for mayor).
For episodes 4 and 5, the Green Arrow comics of Elliot S! Maggin, in particular, Green Lantern/Green Arrow #87 (which first put forward the idea of Oliver Queen running for mayor of Star City) and Green Arrow: Quiver, which dealt with the idea of a resurrected hero coming back from the dead and not having a soul.
For episode 7, the Green Arrow comics of Elliot S! Maggin, with Oliver Queen running for mayor.
For episode 9, the Green Arrow comics of Elliot S! Maggin, with Oliver fighting corrupt forces trying to thwart his campaign while running for mayor.
For episode 10, Green Arrow: The Longbow Hunters, with Oliver going over the edge dealing with people who nearly killed the woman he loves.
For episode 12, Green Arrow 75, with Oliver discovering his attacker to be Roy Harper and Roy being forced to act against Oliver.
Episodes 14 and 15, the Green Arrow comics of Elliot S! Maggin, with Oliver fighting corrupt forces trying to thwart his campaign while running for mayor (just like episode 9).
Episode 19 was slightly influenced by Quiver.
Episode 22 was slightly influenced by Green Arrow: City Walls, which had Green Arrow up against a magically empowered villain in a sealed city. Also, like in Darhk's sealed Hive, they were very strict about rules being broken in the sealed city. Anyone that broke rules was killed.
Oliver doubting himself, questioning whether he is really doing any good as a vigilante and if he is actually helping people is something that came up a lot in Dennis O'Neil and Elliot S Maggin's Green Arrow stories.
Episode 23 was influenced by Green Arrow City Walls, with Oliver getting the people of Starling City behind him to fight a magically empowered villain (in the comics Albert Davis, not Darhk).
It was also influenced by Green Arrow: One Year later, where Oliver became mayor of the city after an attack from a super-villain.
There was other stuff too, but I am working off memory and I am not bothered digging up old stuff from comics for this.
SM_experiment
Civilian
- Joined
- May 26, 2016
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
Yeah I was taking the piss out of you...... What I meant was it does not matter what details from the comics they took when the backbone of what they took it from was missing (hense my comment about how taking a batman story was not a bad idea IF it was actually Green Arrow they were interested in making a tv show about.) All your details are meaningless since what makes Ollie Green Arrow is missing. (He goes to the island lives alone comes to a great existential insight about his life and gets off the Island and tries to make a better world. Almost all of the comic ones are atreamlined because we do not need an entire story about what happened there and how he learned martial arts there). They have over complicated (and very needlessly so) his origins as well as not making that insight his but his fathers. Instead of trying to actually bring a whole deal fo Green Arrow mythology to the screen they filter every detail through a screen to make it fit the Batclone they created instead of Green Arrow. Quiver in particular is meaningless since it is one of the few stories that truly deals with Green Arrows legacy and character so any reference feels forced and done purely to sate fans instead of actually bringing depth and intelligence to the show. In the end like I said they are not interested in Green Arrow but Batman, it shows throughout the entire show. Also I ouldn't say redemption fxists in his stories that often as the underlining themes of responsibility adn mutuality. Look at Quiver it is not a storyline when Green Arrow redeems himself, it is a storyline about how he naturally wants to shirk responsibility he gained on the island and also gets in his own way ****ing things up fof himself and the need to act like a man and be responsible which is why his soul went from heaven to earth so he couls save Mia.
Last edited:
BlueLanternKal
Super-Lex
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2016
- Messages
- 5,664
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I was reminded about how terrible this show has gotten when I remembered how embarrassed I was when my pop caught an episide with me. It was so cringe worthy. My pop doesn't know **** about comic books and he basically binged Daredevil with me one weekend on his own accord so it isn't any sort of bias. Arrow is just terribad now. Season 1 to now might as well be two completely different shows.
And I agree with the Batarcher comment. He's never been the borderline Marxist from the books. This a character that's heavily based on Robin Hood. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor and all that jazz. It's no surprise that these writers are blind leading blind when they haven't even gotten the titular character's core attributes down 4 seasons in. They've based a show on Nolan's TDKT and when they ran out of material to carbon copy it's become the jumbled hot mess that it is.
I can only hope that Flash's Flashpoint effects this show to the point that they scrap everything including the foundation and start from square one with a character truer to the source, but I'm a dreamer or so I've been told.
And I agree with the Batarcher comment. He's never been the borderline Marxist from the books. This a character that's heavily based on Robin Hood. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor and all that jazz. It's no surprise that these writers are blind leading blind when they haven't even gotten the titular character's core attributes down 4 seasons in. They've based a show on Nolan's TDKT and when they ran out of material to carbon copy it's become the jumbled hot mess that it is.
I can only hope that Flash's Flashpoint effects this show to the point that they scrap everything including the foundation and start from square one with a character truer to the source, but I'm a dreamer or so I've been told.
Jedi Arrow
Vigilant Knight
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2014
- Messages
- 1,112
- Reaction score
- 67
- Points
- 73
Well, color me impressedboth by your knowledge of the comics and by how much they've actually been farming the comics, for all peoples' complaints. This is nice to read. Last season was about as far from perfect as possible, but at least they were consciously sticking with "Green Arrow" plots.
SM_experiment
Civilian
- Joined
- May 26, 2016
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
Also the dennis o'neil and maggin conception of the character is opposed each pther politically which is why even in the comics it makes no sense for him to run for mayor. O'Neils conception of him was as a anti authoritarian left wing who mistrusted the system completely Maggin just made him into a sterotypical liberal. It also telling that O'Neil has on multiple occassion criticised the storyline of Ollie becoming Mayor. So that goes to show how much they respect the character picking and choosing without understnading the various versions.
SM_experiment
Civilian
- Joined
- May 26, 2016
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
Excepting of course how Green Arrow was missing and instead we have Arrow.
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,743
- Reaction score
- 49
- Points
- 33
I think I'm done. I was on the fence for Season 4, but after the Flash crossover, I said I'd power through season 4. I was disappointed, which says a lot because my expectations were pretty low. I don't know what this show is about anymore. Maybe it's about Oliver and Felicity and Oliver's darkness. Apparently it's about magic and nukes.
Can we take a moment to just reflect on this show, about a vigilante in Starling City has become one where he battles a dark wizard over ALL OF THE NUKES IN THE WORLD. So at once you have a huge betrayal of the scale of the show, evidenced by all the nukes in the world being portrayed as one control room, but also the theme of the show, about ostensibly, some guys with some kevlar and a bow and arrow
So the death of Laurel wasn't the last straw. It was really just another shovel of dirt. The casket was already lowered with whatever forgettableness had happened in Season 3. But when they brought Sara, they showed me that the plot was meaningless, a shovel of dirt. When they dedicated the first half of the season to building up a different show, which was really kind of a selfwank in totality, it was another shovel of dirt. When Felicity was crippled and fixed within a matter of episodes, I realized they weren't interested in their own stories. A shovel of dirt. When they killed Laurel, and I realized that I didn't care about this character that I'd genuinely liked, that had a genuine arc and had grown so much and meant so much in the comics and I felt nothing, another shovel of dirt. By the time the magic and nukes finale rolled around, I realized that the Arrow I loved was truly gone. I mourned it, I think. Not a weeping thing, because it had been dying for so long, but a sadness.
Many others have, and will talk about the glory of Season 1 and 2. I loved them, despite their many flaws. I saw potential, and they occasionally did things that surprised me, not the least of which was introducing the two best additions to the GA mythos ever: Diggle and Felicity. Brilliant, imo. But I think the high point of Arrow for me, the point when I really thought the show was going to be interesting and risk taking (while still hewing to superhero tropes and preserving the status quo in the long run) was when Ra's stabbed Ollie. I was more than miffed at the white-washed Ra's, but at least they made him awesome. At least they made him a clear superior to Ollie in every way that matters. They set Ollie up for the Lazarus Pit, for leaving the vigilante work in the incapable hands of his teammates, all that. I didn't realize the show was incapable of subplots that lasted more than three episodes at the time. So when Ollie shows up at the end of the next episode, I realized the show was a coward. When the season ends with Ollie inexplicably one shotting Ra's after being on his back foot a whole episode, I still hoped. Which led me to watch Season 4, and see that this show really is truly done.
The show will continue on of course. It's a show that can do a lot with a small budget. But man... am I glad this is not the Green Arrow of the DCEU, which is saying something, because that stuff has disappointed me too.
I can't end this without, counterintuitively, showing huge respect to all the people that made Arrow what it is. These people have worked hard, and with incredible passion and brought joy to my evenings and new dimensions to my favorite characters and universe. They are to be commended. The problem is, no matter how hard the ship's crew works, if it's being steered poorly, that effort can be misused, even wasted. Such is the case with Arrow.
Is there hope? Yes, always. A streamlined revitalized Arrow that flips its insipid tropes and gives us tight, challenging writing could bring back people who enjoy plot and still keep people who enjoy shipping. But the writer's room can't ship, or if they do, they have to ship the plot with the human experience or something like that. Ship the plot, not plot the ship. I don't see any other options for this thing getting to a season 7. There's no solid relationships to do a Supernatural. The ships the show is about require instability. That means the show is unstable, able to sink. But hey, six seasons isn't bad. And who knows, they may extend the show using behind the scenes politics instead of show quality.
Can we take a moment to just reflect on this show, about a vigilante in Starling City has become one where he battles a dark wizard over ALL OF THE NUKES IN THE WORLD. So at once you have a huge betrayal of the scale of the show, evidenced by all the nukes in the world being portrayed as one control room, but also the theme of the show, about ostensibly, some guys with some kevlar and a bow and arrow
So the death of Laurel wasn't the last straw. It was really just another shovel of dirt. The casket was already lowered with whatever forgettableness had happened in Season 3. But when they brought Sara, they showed me that the plot was meaningless, a shovel of dirt. When they dedicated the first half of the season to building up a different show, which was really kind of a selfwank in totality, it was another shovel of dirt. When Felicity was crippled and fixed within a matter of episodes, I realized they weren't interested in their own stories. A shovel of dirt. When they killed Laurel, and I realized that I didn't care about this character that I'd genuinely liked, that had a genuine arc and had grown so much and meant so much in the comics and I felt nothing, another shovel of dirt. By the time the magic and nukes finale rolled around, I realized that the Arrow I loved was truly gone. I mourned it, I think. Not a weeping thing, because it had been dying for so long, but a sadness.
Many others have, and will talk about the glory of Season 1 and 2. I loved them, despite their many flaws. I saw potential, and they occasionally did things that surprised me, not the least of which was introducing the two best additions to the GA mythos ever: Diggle and Felicity. Brilliant, imo. But I think the high point of Arrow for me, the point when I really thought the show was going to be interesting and risk taking (while still hewing to superhero tropes and preserving the status quo in the long run) was when Ra's stabbed Ollie. I was more than miffed at the white-washed Ra's, but at least they made him awesome. At least they made him a clear superior to Ollie in every way that matters. They set Ollie up for the Lazarus Pit, for leaving the vigilante work in the incapable hands of his teammates, all that. I didn't realize the show was incapable of subplots that lasted more than three episodes at the time. So when Ollie shows up at the end of the next episode, I realized the show was a coward. When the season ends with Ollie inexplicably one shotting Ra's after being on his back foot a whole episode, I still hoped. Which led me to watch Season 4, and see that this show really is truly done.
The show will continue on of course. It's a show that can do a lot with a small budget. But man... am I glad this is not the Green Arrow of the DCEU, which is saying something, because that stuff has disappointed me too.
I can't end this without, counterintuitively, showing huge respect to all the people that made Arrow what it is. These people have worked hard, and with incredible passion and brought joy to my evenings and new dimensions to my favorite characters and universe. They are to be commended. The problem is, no matter how hard the ship's crew works, if it's being steered poorly, that effort can be misused, even wasted. Such is the case with Arrow.
Is there hope? Yes, always. A streamlined revitalized Arrow that flips its insipid tropes and gives us tight, challenging writing could bring back people who enjoy plot and still keep people who enjoy shipping. But the writer's room can't ship, or if they do, they have to ship the plot with the human experience or something like that. Ship the plot, not plot the ship. I don't see any other options for this thing getting to a season 7. There's no solid relationships to do a Supernatural. The ships the show is about require instability. That means the show is unstable, able to sink. But hey, six seasons isn't bad. And who knows, they may extend the show using behind the scenes politics instead of show quality.
SpideyVille
Walking out the Desert
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2008
- Messages
- 24,524
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 31
It's weird, I was in a Facebook group and someone posted the article about Artemis, and someone started talking about Guggenheim and how he might ruin her character. So we started discussing things like our likes and dislikes for the show and other things like Smallville.
Someone else comes along and starts talking about how its unfair to blame Guggenheim or the writers because the show suffered from things like Colton's "unexpected" departure and DC not letting them use the Suicide Squad or Deathstroke.
Obviously, I had to comment on this and how Roy leaving does not lead to Felicity being responsible for 10,000 deaths and not showing remorse in the next episode, but of course, I was labeled as a hater bashing the show and that if I hate it so much, I should stop watching and talking about it.
That kind of stuff really infuriates me.
Someone else comes along and starts talking about how its unfair to blame Guggenheim or the writers because the show suffered from things like Colton's "unexpected" departure and DC not letting them use the Suicide Squad or Deathstroke.
Obviously, I had to comment on this and how Roy leaving does not lead to Felicity being responsible for 10,000 deaths and not showing remorse in the next episode, but of course, I was labeled as a hater bashing the show and that if I hate it so much, I should stop watching and talking about it.
That kind of stuff really infuriates me.
SM_experiment
Civilian
- Joined
- May 26, 2016
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
Please do not take my criticism for the show as an attack on your opinions...
For me these two characters alone showcase exactly how much from the get go they weren't interested in making a Green Arrow. Because they add nothing to his mythos except by making him a batclone. Diggle while well written at times and interesting concept is essentially just Alfred but black. Green Arrow does not need an extensive support system in the same way Batman does. One of the absolute joys of reading Green Arrow in the comics is how HE is one figuring out how to change and improve himself. Certainly other characters push and discuss things with him but not like Diggle and Alfred where they are the morality and conscience of Batman. Felicity is just Oracle there is literally nothing she adds to Green Arrow as a character, she might add something to Arrow but not Green Arrow. I am just so happy that after first Judd Winick mediocre run and then the back and forth of the new52 comics we are finally seeing the end of the horizon and appears to be getting Green Arrow back in great glory again.
Hopefully, in the future, you can find ways to do that without making yourself look silly in the process.
Well, if that is what you meant, then you did not express it very clearly.
You said:
That is the main things that I was responding too, which I proved to be wrong, and I made that clear.
In the context of what I was responding to, they are not meaningless.
This is obviously wrong, which I proved in my earlier post. There is other stuff too that I left out, and if bothered, I could go into detail about stuff they took from the comics in the earlier seasons. There is no denying that they take from Batman a lot too, I never denied that, and you would have to be very easily confused to have thought that I had done so. Batman, along with Green Arrow and Teen Titans is one of the main sources that this show draws from.
I am not bothered responding to the rest of your post as you are just arguing against things that I never said.
Last edited:
SM_experiment
Civilian
- Joined
- May 26, 2016
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
But you still seem not to get though When I was saying they should just go ahead and do what they wanted without any attacjhment to the comis, It is very clear I am meaning that since they are not interested in Green Arrow but clearly making a batman tv show they shouldn't take things from Green Arrow comics at all since nothing they do seems to actually examining, explore as well as experiment with Green Arrow. I was clearly talking about how they shouldn't take things from the comics when the Arrow they set up resembles him not at all.
They are definitely meaingless because again my point was how in the SHOW any reference is meaningless since they filter all of it through the batclone filter to make it appear on the other side not actually writing a Green Arrow series. It seems silly for me that you did not get I was referring the show and not you.
Well didn't you? You response to me was how they too include the comics and I was trying to explain very clearly my opinion in how even if they base an entire storyline of Onomopoteia it doesn't matter because it isn't Green Arrow fighting him because the creators of Arrow is very clearly interested in Batman not Green Arrow. I was responding and explaining my comment since that is what you asked of me. If you feel that wasn't needed to be said than why respond to my "stupid" comment at all when you are not interested in hearing me explain myself. If you like this show fine I really do not care I simply said my opinion that as a life long Green Arrow fan and a dude who has read most if not all the comics I feel this show is Batman with arrows who occasionally uses Green Arrow storylines not Green Arrow who occasionally uses batman storylines.
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,743
- Reaction score
- 49
- Points
- 33
I have nothing but respect for the classic Green Arrow.
That said, he never really caught my attention. Arrow did. And while it was a Bat-clone, that is meta-textual origin of Green Arrow, and the show was aware of that and took the Bat-cloneness in interesting directions, much like has been done with Green Arrow over the decades. We had a "Batman" show where Bruce was training Alfred to fight and Barbara was aloof and adorkably flirtatious. Alfred was fully cognizant that his servitude was a farce. Barbara couldn't fight for beans. Those would be interesting developments in a Batman mythos, and they were no less interesting when applied to Green Arrow. For all of Green Arrow's mythos, a guy who doesn't need anyone wouldn't have been as interesting to watch, and honestly would have reminded me even more of Batman, who ostensibly doesn't need all of his supporting cast because he's the world's greatest detective and makes his own gadgets in his spare time. Until there's no narration bubbles and you realize he needs dialogue in order to be an interesting character and all that suddenly goes away. The fact that Ollie needed Tommy and Laurel's approval, the fact that he was still a kid with a mom and sister and all of that... it was a fresh take on any mythos to me. It wasn't like a superhero I'd seen before, even though it so clearly borrowed from The Dark Knight trilogy. It was aware, so aware.
The show was great, and it was indeed divorced from the silver age Green Arrow status quo. Laurel was never going to be Dinah, but she could have been even more interesting if they'd plotted and written her well. S1 certainly had the most appealing version of Malcolm Merlyn ever seen, imho.There were so many upsides, that the downside of 'but it's not like the comics' didn't mean much to me, especially since I, like most people, have never read a Green Arrow comic book. I think that they were right in guessing that not many people were interested in Green Arrow, but his premise was still the ideal vehicle for creating the kind of show that would gain instant traction. And they were right.
And honestly, with many of their adaptation choices, it's no further a show of disinterest in Green Arrow than the movie adaptations of other DC superheroes have shown disinterest in those guys. Neither Baleman or Batfleck capture the feel of Batman from the mainstream comics. It's far more faithful to the feel and themes of the mythos than the X-Men franchise. And unlike those franchises, Arrow telegraphed its desire to move closer to the silver age status quo over time. Laurel somehow knowing how to lay out two grown men back in S1.
What I think happened to this show, and many others, is that it got full of itself. It was much more successful than it could have anticipated and it lost sight of where it was going, and I truly do think it was going more towards the silver age. That's why Arrow, and his lack of name and his darkness was deliberately framed as a bad thing. Arrow was never meant to stay there, just as he was never meant to stay 'The Hood' on a show named Arrow. But once they saw how much people liked Arrow they incorrectly figured the darkness was part of the draw, even though they weren't and still aren't dedicated to any darkness but once per season dramatic deaths of characters they don't want to write well, keeping secrets and the most superficial brooding, and by the time they decided to address it in S4, it was on the back of another sort of self-referential storyline that was hard to care about unless you were deeply invested in Roy's non-sacrifice and think of "light" as a magical power to combat the "darkness" which is magic, not y'know, tragedy and moral dilemmas.
I think Arrow season 1 was one of the best ways to set up a Green Arrow with mainstream appeal possible. The show I think more naturally evolved would have put Arrow where I think you would have appreciated by the beginning of Season 3. I think they could have worked out a way to put a kind of Michael Westen-like self-narrating Know It All, and just drop Black Canary (with/without powers?) in there from the jump, but I don't think it would have taken off in the same way that Arrow did. Maybe it would have been enough though. My hindsight is only 20/20.
Last edited:
SM_experiment
Civilian
- Joined
- May 26, 2016
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
See I have to disagree completely here. I never felt the metatextual thing at all with this show. That was my problem in season 1. The problem is not that having a bunch of references to batman in order to showcase his beginnings in the comics (LIke I always wanted him to joking call his hideout Arrowcave) but that he is not from get go at all like Green Arrow he is batman, a uber competent fighter who fight because of paternal issues. Even the old comics he was still recognizably his own character even if yes he had alot of similarities with Batman but he was never the uber competent detective who stalked the night for vengence which is what they do in season 1. Metatext commentary is fine but do it wel or dont do it at all. Because for me this isn't clever metatexual commentary it is them not interested in Green Arrow. Same thing with his time on the island (in which all the great comics emphasizes aloneless and his own insight into his life which is not there. The islands is just his training ground in order to become the dark vigilante. Arrow is most likely the worst modern way to introduce a character like Green Arrow becaue now he will never get away from under the Batshadow he escaped 47 years ago now he will stay there until finally someone comes and actually makes Green Arrow again instead of Arrow. Because the best to introduce Green Arrow to a mainstream audiences would be to exercise away all the batclone **** so people do not misunderstand him. Which in my opinion is more and more people. Everyone thinks they get Green Arrow the comic book due to the ****** batclone of Arrow when what they seen is just someone not interested to explore a unique superhero to settle for one that has the most shows and stories about him. For me that is what leads them to be so unoriginal because we have had movies and shows about the Batclone but never one about Green Arrow. I am sorry but this shows grates me because as I have said it wants to be nothing more than batman that it can never become good, because I have seen it all before. In my first viewing i stopped when I could predict everything that was gonna happen season 1 due to them writing batclone not Green Arrow.
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,743
- Reaction score
- 49
- Points
- 33
I definitely feel where you're coming from as a fan perspective. Arrow, the way it ended up playing out, did not do any favors for the silver age GA persona. That's really sad, and a failing of the show.
I don't think that's what was happening the first season though. As a batclone, it kinda sucked. It spent an incredible amount of time not only deconstructing the Batman approach, but showing why it's bad and doesn't help, up to and including the vigilante failing to stop the quake and the guy who hated Oliver for his batman-likeness dying a hero ( as if to say: if only Oliver had been a hero instead of a vigilante!). Even being in the mansion was a bad thing, a vestige of the superfluity of the corruption of his parents. Everything Batman-like about Arrow was framed as wrong and in need of changing. In S1, before the show got full of itself, being a Batclone was explicitly a bad thing. I think it was pretty well done, as I didn't realize how thoroughly they deconstructed Batman until just now.
Because Green Arrow is, in reality, a bat-clone he'd draw comparisons to what would be percieved as a 'superior' vigilante and that had to be addressed. I think one of the best ways to address it was to have GA try to be Batman and it suck. A bait and switch as it were. Even on the island, which I agree ended up just a training ground in the end, was more than that in S1, to me at least. He definitely had to examine who he was, and his rescue was framed as him being alone and self reflective and survivalist for some time, if you remember the pilot. The idea that he'd been all over the world training and instead of growing a wicked beard must have come in later.
Now the show as a whole, yes, I totally agree. I've seen this happen on plenty of shows, where they have a great idea for season 1, and then they get full of themselves and its season four before they get back to the good storylines vs the fanboy writers room storylines and by then its too late and people feel like it was always trash because the best parts of season 1 never got followed up on. But I think if Oliver had stepped back at the end of season 1 and said: "Well, vigilanteism doesn't work, and I don't wanna be like Malcolm, I need a whole different Tommy's heroism-inspired approach here." I think we'd be having a totally different conversation right now. IIRC, he even went back to the island for pure self-reflection time. Instead they just did 'well, don't kill' which suddenly turned being a bat-clone into a good thing, for the first time in the show. That's when the show stopped addressing the problems you're talking about.
I'm not sure how a straight silver age GA show could handle the things S1 handled well, such as the audience's natural comparisons of Oliver to Batman.
Last edited:
SM_experiment
Civilian
- Joined
- May 26, 2016
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
I do not understand you fascination with his Silver age persona since there have been plenty of more comics since tackle the character in good ways and bad.
I am sorry but if you feel that Green Arrow is just a batclone and he should suck at being Batman. Then (Please understand I am not insulting you or think your opinion are not valid) you pretty much have proved my point how Arrow ****s up people being introduced to Green Arrow since he is so much more, He is a passionate, funny, polically conscious and intelligent man who can be a really good hero and vigilante on his own without just being a batclone. For me this showcases again how little they want to do a Green Arrow story. Since pretty much like you admitted they made a batclone that fails which is not Green Arrow (he can fail on his own accords without being a batclone). In reality Green Arrow was created as a batclone to sell more comics but he quickly even with all the similarities evolved into his own unique character that later had one of the best reimagings in comic book history where he was made into a political conscious crime fighter that criticises Batman at every turn for his failings. You have showcased even more for me why this show fails completely and utterly as a Green Arrow storyline since it makes him appear to be just a batclone when he is so much more than that.
It is super easy how they could have handeld it. By not bothering to bring it up in the first place. All they needed to do was make an intelligent good Green Arrow show with references and in jokes for fans. Why would people compare him to Batman? I haven't watched Daredevil but did that show spend an entire 2 seasons trying to prove that Daredevil wasn't Batman. No it ****ing didn't because their creators understood that people can handle the idea of multiple vigilante heroes on tv without referring to the Batgod.
It seems for me supereasy because and here is a thing we do not need him to be Silver age arrow (especially since he was reimagined in the Bronze age not the silver age) he can be the Ollie from the 80s or 90s or 00s or hell from the ****ing 40s as long as it is Green Arrow. Not whatever zombie they have in this show.
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,743
- Reaction score
- 49
- Points
- 33
I use silver age as a shorthand for 'classic version.' If it's Bronze age, my bad, I'm not up on GA.
But I think you missed my point a bit. I wasn't saying they failed to make a Batclone, he was very effective, actually, as you can see from the popularity of the S1 show. I said they successfully made a batclone and illustrated why that is bad from a moral, personal and narrative perspective. Not just for the sake of adhering to the Green Arrow comics, but because being a vengeful vigilante really is some psychotic ish. The Green Arrow that would have naturally emerged from S1 would have been just as critical of Batman because he'd been there done that and it sucked for him as a person and the people around him. Green Arrow is not just a batclone, but we agree he started as a Batclone and then differentiated himself, and I don't think the writers of Arrow were anti-GA by starting the same path. I don't think that's where you end , but I think you have to start there. You seem to feel that you can just ignore that, ignore Batman's effect on the cultural perception of vigilantes. I think they were wrong to stray from that path of starting as a Batclone and then differentiating, but do you think they were wrong to do what the comics did to sell comics in order to make a popular TV show?
If you watch Daredevil, you'll see they spend a season, ensuring the audience understands that Daredevil isn't just another gadget swinging vigilante with a costume. No costume. No name, or general 'the hood' type names. Sounds familiar? Daredevil took it further and differentiated from Batman more by taking away: sidekicks, gadgets, wealth, lots of fighting skill, detective work, adding a lawyer angle, and having no interaction with the whole DC Universe. And it was awesome, because they ended the season with the arrival of a
I think one thing that fans don't always understand is the need of the general audience to have their same experience in order to dig the character the way they do. You had to have an experience where you saw Batman as a flawed and less interesting and Green Arrow as a better alternative. Without that experience, you would like Batman more and YOU wouldn't be interested in GA. With that experience, if you aren't aware of it, you think it's just so easy and so obvious and so simple. "Of course everyone will forget about Batman, I did! They'll love the inside references for all the GA fans!"
I know your pain though. I feel the same way about Superman, and was just as upset about the lack of interest in the Superman character demonstrated by Man of Steel and even further by Dawn of Justice. I was hot, and disgusted. Yet, I can acknowledge what they were trying to do, and have a respect for external pressures that led to some of their decisions that I dislike most. I also understand that it is not *easy* to do Superman in a way that is both "right" and "popular" because not everyone has my experience. Many people interpret someone good and powerful as unrealistic as opposed to inspiring. I acknowledge that Superman isn't even that popular among comics fans and most prefer to see him as an also ran in the Justice League rather than explore his own personal journey solo.
So I feel your pain, but I'm talking less about how a Green Arrow show could have been *for you* and more about how it could have been for a wider audience who generally believes three things:
1) Batman is the best superhero, next to Iron Man
2) Politics are horrible, keep them out of my entertainment
3) The best movies of all time include: Titanic, Avatar and Transformers
I also just like good storytelling, and creating a Green Arrow who is critical of Batman for reasons Oliver post-S1 should have had sounds like a more interesting version of the
Last edited:
SM_experiment
Civilian
- Joined
- May 26, 2016
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
I get that you meant that they didn't fail to make a batman clone but you said they made Green Arrow into a guy who is Batman that fails which for definitely isn't green arrow. If you do not make a green arrow that is recognizibly green arrow than for me shouldn't you just not make Green Arrow in the first place. Audiences does not know what they want until they got it so trying to make it fit a preconcieved entity called "audience" seems for me to undermine their art and entertainment.
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,743
- Reaction score
- 49
- Points
- 33
But he didn't fail at being Batman. They made a guy who being a successful Batman made him a crappy person. The only mistake they made, in my eyes, was not allow Oliver to learn from his mistakes, which was a common critique in Season 2, IIRC. I agree he should have been recognizably Green Arrow for you circa Season 2, like Daredevil was.
The audience doesn't know what they want. But successful writers and storytellers do, and failed writers and storytellers don't. Successful writers also make sure to address a particular audience, whether that's Green Arrow fans for the writer of a Green Arrow comic, or casual tv watchers ages 18-34. They get to know that audience and cater to it. If they do well, they get that audience and a little extra. That's the job.
Fincher
Coming Undone
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,875
- Reaction score
- 1,261
- Points
- 103
I'd say that what you're talking about has never been a problem I've had with the show, except that I'm not sure what Batman qualities you think Oliver was supposed to eschew after Season 1. I don't see that season by itself as being about Oliver being wrong, either; I see it as existing in a morally gray world where there is no obvious right answer. It's only in the following seasons that I feel the show became about him evolving away from how he did things (in some ways).
SM_experiment
Civilian
- Joined
- May 26, 2016
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
But why should he in anyway be batman in the first place when that means he cannot be Green Arrow which is why the show fails from the start in my opinion. They were never interested in Green Arrow but only writing a Batman story.
Yeah my point about writers was because this shows fails from the start if the character they claim to write for a tv show is not there.
Since they do not know their audience why assume that an intelligent good show about Green Arrow and not batclone is not going to succeed. So their job is writing a good Green Arrow show and making it work for the audience. You seem to ignore my point isn't about whether this show is good or not but whether it explores and write an intelligent Green Arrow story which is why this show failed and died as soon as it showed its interest in Batman not Green Arrow
Last edited:
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
Staff online
-
DKDetectiveElementary, Dear Robin (he/him) -
Lily Adler#forthecontent! 📹 (she/her)
