Mind Your Surroundings: Arrow, The Flash, Supergirl, Legends of Tomorrow and Other Superhero Universes

[Oreo2234]

Yes, going from that relationship to looking after a kid is too much, too soon. 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Oreo2234

[Starfish35]

22 hours ago, BkWurm1 said:

Interesting to read your take.  I too just saw Thor Ragnorok, like two days ago, but I had the opposite reaction and loved it to pieces. 

And the Thor that we saw seemed to me to be the Thor that we'd seen in the first movie when he'd been a bit full of himself as heir to the throne but also one of the group enjoying his life, eating, drinking and making merry.  He was not acting as much like we'd become accustomed to him in other movies, but despite him trying to get back to his world to save everyone, I felt that Thor was actually more at ease in his current circumstances and what was being thrown at him this time around than he had when we'd seen him on Earth when he was so disillusioned and sad the first time and so angry and hurt by Loki during the Avengers.  So while I don't disagree we were seeing a different side of him, I thought it still felt in character.  He's grown so much from who he was in the first movie, he's not as above it all any more nor as naive or thrown by new things.  He seemed more comfortable in his skin but also more accepting of his own flaws.  (Cleary he's aware of them since Jane dumped him.)  

So for those reasons, I was able to enjoy the characterization in this movie.  Cause I think without the weight of the world and his god complex, this would be who he is.  At this point, he's had the starch taken out of him and while he really did still have the weight of the world on his shoulders, he was more accustom to that now so until he was in the middle of the actual fight, he was pretty relaxed about everything even while still focused on his mission.   

As for Bruce, I didn't see him so much as whining just more than a bit freaked out to have lost that much time.  Plus when you are with a friend, it's always easier to have a meltdown than if you are on your own and have to suck it up.  As for him being afraid he'd not come back again if he turned into Hulk, I don't think there was anything that said that was fact, just Bruce's fears and when the time came, he had to put his fears aside. 

Now, they could be gearing up to make Hulk a permanently CGI character.  That way they'd never have to worry about the actor aging but I think that's too soon to assume has happened.    (I hope)

I really don't think that this movie, which really was more slapstick than anything we'd seen before, will be the template for the Infinity Wars.  I'm sure some other movie genre will drive that one. than 

I loved the movie too.  I'd never really considered myself much of a Thor fan.  He was just there.  I could take or leave him.  But this movie made me very much a fan.  (And on the shallow side of the pool, Thor with short hair is really hot.)

I liked the way the movie made him grow in the way he related to Loki especially, even being able to get one over on him.  And I like the idea that Thor is growing up, is learning to be able to roll with the punches, and make the best of bad situations. 

I don't really think it will be the template for the movies going forward though.  A lot of it was the director for this particular movie, I think, and he won't be directing Infinity War.  

I don't know what they're going to do with Bruce.  I doubt he's gone permanently, but....I guess you never know.  I'm going to guess that probably Nat will be able to bring him back once they get back to Earth, though.  Her voice was what brought him back before.

[Morrigan2575]

Have you guys not seen the Infinity War trailer? I thought it was posted here.

 

It answers some of the Hulk/Banner stuff

[Starfish35]

I had seen it, but I guess I just hadn't paid attention to the Banner parts.  But yeah, I guess that does answer the question.

[tv echo]

From what I read, they're not allowed to make another stand-alone Hulk movie for some behind-the-scenes reason, so they told Mark Ruffalo that they were going to do Bruce/Hulk's story arc spread out over a few other Marvel movies starting with Thor: Ragnorak.

Edited January 28, 2018 by tv echo

[quarks]

3 minutes ago, tv echo said:

From what I read, they're not allowed to make another stand-alone Hulk movie for some behind-the-scenes reason, so they told Mark Ruffalo that they were going to do Bruce/Hulk's story arc spread out over a few other Marvel movies starting with Thor: Ragnorak.

From a few posts back, Universal owns the distribution rights (not the filming rights) to Hulk, so by spreading Hulk's story arc through other films and keeping him as a supporting character, Disney doesn't have to share the profits of Hulk films with Universal.

[BkWurm1]

Someday someone will probably do a Hulk/Bruce only cut.  That could be interesting to watch.

[tv echo]

Overlooked: Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, Jane the Virgin
By Reut Cohen  29 January 2018
https://thevarsity.ca/2018/01/29/overlooked-crazy-ex-girlfriend-jane-the-virgin/

Quote

The merged successor to The WB and UPN, The CW is a joint venture between CBS and Warner Bros. Since its debut in 2006, the network has had its growing pains, but it was still at the forefront of the teen melodrama with shows such as Gossip Girl, 90210, and The Vampire Diaries.

In recent years, though, the network might as well have been known as the superhero show channel, home to DC comic adaptations including Arrow, Supergirl, and The Flash. Yet aside from these anchors, in addition to the blockbuster Supernatural, the network’s lineup also currently includes a number of compelling series that are not getting the attention they deserve.
*  *  *
I haven’t even mentioned the post-apocalyptic drama The 100, or Riverdale, the show we are all growing to love to hate. Suffice it to say that treating The CW as solely the domain of Greg Berlanti is both an incorrect assumption and one that’s a shame. Behind the archery, capes, and lightning bolts are a handful of series that are well worth the watch.

Edited January 29, 2018 by tv echo

[tv echo]

New Captain Marvel set photo and filming vid...

 

Quote

The movie focuses on (duh) Captain Marvel, a.k.a. Carol Danvers, who will be played by Brie Larson. She’s a former pilot whose DNA is altered by an encounter with an alien warrior, thus granting her a whole lot of superpowers such as flight, super strength, and channeling energy into weaponized blasts. Not unusual for a Marvel film…except this one is going retro. At this year’s San Diego Comic-Con it was revealed that Carol’s story takes place in the 1990s. No word yet on whether that means Captain Marvel will be sporting the “Rachel” haircut or a sweet pair of JNCOs, but we can hope.

On the opposing team are the Skrulls, shape-shifting aliens with the ability to assume the forms of basically whoever they want, which is what makes them so difficult to fight. The Skrulls were first introduced to Marvel Comics in the Kree-Skrull War story arc, where their interplanetary conflict with the Kree aliens spilled over to Earth and messed things up extraterrestrial-style.

(source)

Edited January 29, 2018 by tv echo

[way2interested]

Tbh my issue with her costume isn't the color but that it doesn't fit her well and that the color itself looks bad. She looks great in the other pics for her Carol Danvers stuff though.

[tv echo]

Avengers: Infinity War news (Pepper is in, Sharon is out)...

‘Avengers: Infinity War’: Gwyneth Paltrow Teases Pepper Potts In Action
by ADAM FENSTER on JANUARY 26, 2018
https://heroichollywood.com/avengers-infinity-war-gwyneth-paltrow/

Emily VanCamp says Sharon Carter isn't in Avengers: Infinity War
By Celebretainment Jan 29, 2018
http://www.frontiersman.com/national/entertainment/emily-vancamp-says-sharon-carter-isn-t-in-avengers-infinity/article_6dab0c4f-b015-5833-a0a5-6295e0639ce8.html

[Morrigan2575]

Never liked Sharon so, no complaints from me.

 

For Captain Marvel, I wonder if the green suit is supposed to be Carol using Mar-Vell's costume (like Thea using Roy's in 323)? Then by the end of the movie she has "her" red/blue costume. 

I love, love, love that she doesn't have heels on her boots.

[tv echo]

Gee, what a surprise - emotional connection to characters beats out emotional response to "set pieces, explosions and special effects"...

Marvel Tops DC at the Box Office Because Fans Emotionally Connect With Its Characters, Study Shows
By A.J. Katz  January 24, 2018
http://www.adweek.com/tv-video/marvel-tops-dc-at-the-box-office-because-fans-emotionally-connect-with-its-characters-study-shows/

Quote

According to a study done by automated market research tech provider ZappiStore, the success of Marvel at the box office and beyond can be linked to the viewer’s emotional engagement with the superheroes during a Marvel movie trailer.

ZappiStore was able to test a viewer’s emotional engagement with a series of Marvel and DC movie trailers by using a facial coding and emotion recognition platform called Affectiva.

The respondents participating in the Marvel/DC study, and others like it, only need internet connectivity and a standard web camera. As viewers watch stimulus, Affectiva can measure their moment-by-moment facial expressions of emotions. The results for this study were aggregated and displayed in a dashboard.

Because data protection regulations prevent us from showing you photos of the Marvel/DC test results, here’s a look at how a participant is responding to an episode of CBS’s Friends with Better Lives, and how her response is being measured:
 

ZappiStore tested a number of DC and Marvel movie trailers to measure viewer emotional engagement and find out which elements impacted performance of the trailers, including how much the respondents “loved” the trailer, how well the trailer grabbed their attention, and how likely respondents were to share the trailer on social media.

ZappiStore says the data shows the DC trailers received a positive response from their special effects and explosive action, rather than from their characters. However, fans show a strong affinity toward Marvel’s superheroes and react positively toward its trailers’ humor, driving the higher levels of emotional engagement with its trailers.
*  *  *
Marvel trailers also index higher on the “brand linkage” score (how well they fit with a respondent’s image of the comics), indicating that inconsistent DC character connections could be having a negative effect on the audience’s emotional engagement with its trailers.

The Marvel trailers also led DC in regards to how well the trailer grabs attention and the degree to which respondents would share the advertisements with others.

... ZappiStore’s study shows that although set pieces, explosions and special effects in DC movie trailers do cause an uplift on the trailer success metrics, it’s Marvel’s consistency with brand affinity and character connection that drives a far higher level of emotional engagement and beats DC across all metrics.
*  *  *
“We were surprised to see, across all trailers tested, that the emotional response was lower than expected for set pieces and special effects, particularly in the genre we were looking at,” ZappiStore research architect Ernie Collings said. “The results indicate the way DC can reboot and change characters across trilogies or between TV to film might be having a detrimental effect on how well the public connects with those characters.”

Edited January 29, 2018 by tv echo

[Sakura12]

With Captain Marvel's outfit, I can even go with she grabbed some random Kree solider outfit and making it not fit perfectly makes more sense instead of what they usually do when characters need to borrow other outfits and they somehow end up finding their perfect match. 

Couldn't most people tell from money Marvel makes over DC to show that the audience is more invested in the Marvel universe? Plus the fact that they spent 10 years building their universe and making us care about these characters. Instead of just throwing a bunch of heroes together expecting everyone to have read all the comics to care about them. 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Sakura12

[tv echo]

[Primal Slayer]

Marvel embraced their characters and stuck to the core of the characters. DC/Snyder did the complete opposite. Snyder is all looks but no substance. He tried to pull an Arrow, build up the characters to who are they over several films but the problem is, movies is not the medium for that type of story telling and he is dealing with much bigger characters who are much more well known.

Plus the films are just bad and boring. 

[lemotomato]

1 hour ago, Primal Slayer said:

Marvel embraced their characters and stuck to the core of the characters. DC/Snyder did the complete opposite. Snyder is all looks but no substance. He tried to pull an Arrow, build up the characters to who are they over several films but the problem is, movies is not the medium for that type of story telling and he is dealing with much bigger characters who are much more well known.

I disagree. Marvel was the one that "pulled an Arrow" in that it took characters that weren't particularly well known to the non-comic reading audience (who, before Iron Man debuted, had only seen a lot of X-Men and Spiderman) and slowly built a movie-verse that's based on the comics, but not beholden to them. DC was the one that tried to replicate story beats from the comics without any explanation as to why the characters were doing what they were doing. They skipped character-building, jumping from Man of Steel to BvS and Wonder Woman to Justice League. When BvS came out, I remember seeing over and over people that defending it by saying "You don't get it how good it is because you don't read comics" and "Snyder made the movie for comic fans, not regular people". BvS was proof that appealing to the comic audience alone can't make a movie a blockbuster. Too bad DC refused to accept that.

[Primal Slayer]

I'm not talking about building an over all world, how they treated their characters. Arrow started Oliver and co. At points in there lives where they were nothing like their comic counterparts, Oliver took 4 years to become Green Arrow and be somewhat happy. Laurel took 3 years to even suit up and it was much darkerinterpretation of light hearted characters. That is the same exact thing that Snyder did. It took 3 films for Superman to really become Superman, he tried to do the same with Wonder Woman and now Flash and Batman. Even MoS like Arrow was never suppose to be something that was world building, it was an accident for both. 

Even plenty of comic book fans rejected BvS and Snyder overall. 

Marvel isn't trying to rewrite their characters and make them into people they aren't. You look at them, hear them speak and you know who they are, you recognize them. 

[lemotomato]

43 minutes ago, Primal Slayer said:

I'm not talking about building an over all world, how they treated their characters. Arrow started Oliver and co. At points in there lives where they were nothing like their comic counterparts, Oliver took 4 years to become Green Arrow and be somewhat happy. Laurel took 3 years to even suit up and it was much darkerinterpretation of light hearted characters. That is the same exact thing that Snyder did. It took 3 films for Superman to really become Superman, he tried to do the same with Wonder Woman and now Flash and Batman. Even MoS like Arrow was never suppose to be something that was world building, it was an accident for both. 

Even plenty of comic book fans rejected BvS and Snyder overall. 

Marvel isn't trying to rewrite their characters and make them into people they aren't. You look at them, hear them speak and you know who they are, you recognize them. 

I think you missed my point, which was that Marvel's movies are successful because they appeal to the non-comic reading audience. As someone who has not read Iron Man/Captain America/Thor/Guardians of the Galaxy/Ant Man, I have no idea if they're being re-written or not. I didn't "recognize" them when their solo movies came out. But Marvel put in the time and effort to introduce them and show the audience their backstories, so people go to know them and understand their motivations before they all teamed up for Avengers and Civil War, without ever having to touch a comic. I like the MCU because I like what I've seen in their solo movies, not because I have any idea what they are in the comics.

Similarly, Arrow built its own mythos, not dependent on comics to explain things. It shaped its own Oliver Queen into someone the audience cared about and was invested in, and created characters not in the comics (Diggle, Felicity, Sara) that the audience liked. Arrow did the opposite of what Snyder did, which was to throw characters from the comics onto the big screen, and hope that the audience already knew who they were and what their backstory was and what comics storyline was being alluded to.

Edited January 29, 2018 by lemotomato

[Starfish35]

4 minutes ago, lemotomato said:

Marvel's movies are successful because they appeal to the non-comic reading audience. As someone who has not read Iron Man/Captain America/Thor/Guardians of the Galaxy/Ant Man, I have no idea if they're being re-written or not. I didn't "recognize" them when their solo movies came out.

I agree with this.  I don't think most of the non-comics reading audience knows or cares how much the MCU characters match up with their comics counterparts.  But Marvel has done an amazing job of taking those characters that we didn't know anything about, and through the writing and some phenomenal casting, making us care about them.

[GHScorpiosRule]

20 minutes ago, lemotomato said:

It shaped its own Oliver Queen into someone the audience cared about and was invested in, and created characters not in the comics (Diggle, Felicity, Sara) that the audience liked.

Technically, there is a Felicity Smoak in the comics. But this show's Felicity is nothing like her.

[statsgirl]

4 hours ago, tv echo said:

“We were surprised to see, across all trailers tested, that the emotional response was lower than expected for set pieces and special effects, particularly in the genre we were looking at,” ZappiStore research architect Ernie Collings said. “The results indicate the way DC can reboot and change characters across trilogies or between TV to film might be having a detrimental effect on how well the public connects with those characters.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

The number of hard core comic book readers, the ones who want to see on screen what they read in the comics, is too small to make those billion dollars films worthwhile.  The only way to afford those films is to bring in the heart of the characters rather than the special effects.  Look at Star Wars.

[Sakura12]

1 hour ago, lemotomato said:

I think you missed my point, which was that Marvel's movies are successful because they appeal to the non-comic reading audience. As someone who has not read Iron Man/Captain America/Thor/Guardians of the Galaxy/Ant Man, I have no idea if they're being re-written or not. I didn't "recognize" them when their solo movies came out. But Marvel put in the time and effort to introduce them and show the audience their backstories, so people go to know them and understand their motivations before they all teamed up for Avengers and Civil War, without ever having to touch a comic. I like the MCU because I like what I've seen in their solo movies, not because I have any idea what they are in the comics.

Similarly, Arrow built its own mythos, not dependent on comics to explain things. It shaped its own Oliver Queen into someone the audience cared about and was invested in, and created characters not in the comics (Diggle, Felicity, Sara) that the audience liked. Arrow did the opposite of what Snyder did, which was to throw characters from the comics onto the big screen, and hope that the audience already knew who they were and what their backstory was and what comics storyline was being alluded to.

Exactly, Marvel doesn't care whether the audience read the comics or not. They focused on building the characters for their universe. Non-comic readers can enjoy the films and the characters without ever having picked up a comic book. DC decided to focus only on their comic fans (which you'd think they'd realize is not that many people going by their sales). They expected their audience to have read the comic and know the character going into the movie instead of building the character in the movie. Man of Steel was an origin movie, then they did BvS which introduced Batman and Wonder Woman (without them having origin movies), then we saw a Wonder Woman origin movie, and again they decided to do a team up movie without origins for the  Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg. 

The CWDC shows followed Marvel's way of doing things, Arrow was origin, Flash was introduced on Arrow but his origin continued his own show, Supergirl was an origin, and Legends took most of the established characters from the others shows and made a team while introducing the origins of the new characters, then they did the big team up crossovers.  The only reason we cared about the crossovers and the Avengers was because we already knew all the characters and wanted to see them all meet. 

[Primal Slayer]

1 hour ago, lemotomato said:

I think you missed my point, which was that Marvel's movies are successful because they appeal to the non-comic reading audience. As someone who has not read Iron Man/Captain America/Thor/Guardians of the Galaxy/Ant Man, I have no idea if they're being re-written or not. I didn't "recognize" them when their solo movies came out. But Marvel put in the time and effort to introduce them and show the audience their backstories, so people go to know them and understand their motivations before they all teamed up for Avengers and Civil War, without ever having to touch a comic. I like the MCU because I like what I've seen in their solo movies, not because I have any idea what they are in the comics.

Similarly, Arrow built its own mythos, not dependent on comics to explain things. It shaped its own Oliver Queen into someone the audience cared about and was invested in, and created characters not in the comics (Diggle, Felicity, Sara) that the audience liked. Arrow did the opposite of what Snyder did, which was to throw characters from the comics onto the big screen, and hope that the audience already knew who they were and what their backstory was and what comics storyline was being alluded to.

My point was geared towards Arrow/DCEU being the same in the sense of them changing characters. The audience can connect easier to Marvel because yes they don't make you need to have comic knowledge. 

But even a lot comic fans rejected Snyder because it was a jumbled mess. 

The general audience may not know anything about their personalities but a lot of these characters have resonated with people for 50+ years because of their personalities and stories. Marvel isn't trying to do anything special and it pays off. Fantastic Four reboot failed miserably partially due to not understanding the characters and it showed on screen. There has to be a certain amount of heart there and F4 didn't have it and DC didn't have it until WW.

[Mary0360]

I'm not really understanding why Arrow is being connected to a conversation about the DCEU; when it has nothing to do with the DECU problems nor is there any similarities between the two. In fact if we are going to try and link Arrow to anything, the producers have gone on the record as modelling Arrow on and using the Nolan verse as a source of inspiration. The Nolan verse which was a vastly successful franchise praised because of its character substance rather then comic continuity. 

 

In fact wasn't Arrow, and the rest of the verse, being praised for how well they handled Crisis on Earth X in an entertaining yet character building way then, at the time, Justice League handled their team up? I remember many reviews praising the Arrowverse more favourably then the DCEU after the crossover. I also remember seeing some reviewers praising the Arrowverse crossovers more favourably then the Marvel Defenders series. Crossovers that are usually focused primarily around Oliver and Arrow characters. So I really don't think Arrow is a connectable problem to DCEUs problems. That seems a stretch.

[tennisgurl]

Wait, you mean people like Marvel movies more than DC movies because...they like the characters?!?! Oh my God, stop the presses, this is truly an Earth shattering revelation!  Audiences like actual characters, as opposed to explosions and cheap fan pandering? Who would have possibly imagined that people would respond better to characters they actually like and get invested in? I am shocked, shocked! 

For real though, that study confirms everything I have always said about the DC in relation to Marvel. Marvel has built its brand on character and universe, and getting the audience invested in the arcs of the individual characters. I've read comic books for years, but I also enjoy the MCU movies (despite the changes they make to the source material) because they just tell good stories with likable characters who develop over the franchise. I appreciate the nods to the comic books that fans will get, and when they take things from the comics, but I like that they make movies that are accessible to a wider audience, and could even get a mainstream audience to be interested in comics themselves. The DC movies, on the other hand, dont care about the mainstream audience, or think that they will be placated by explosions and fancy effects. They arent though. I went to see Justice League with my aunt who has never read comics and knows little about the genre, and she was totally confused the whole time.  Her whole movie experience was "Wait,who was that? What was that green ring? Theres a city under the ocean? Whats going on?" the whole time. On the other hand, she loved Thor Ragnarok, because they explain what is going on, even to non comic book fans. As a comic fan, I felt pandered to, and non comic fans leave feeling confused, or not very invested. 

The Arrowverse took an MCU style to creating its universe, starting small and building, getting the audience invested in the characters, and building the universe slowly, easing its audience into the more fantastical elements, so by the time LoT was zipping around time and space and battling telepathic gorillas in the middle of Nam, the audience is interested, and not just confused. 

[Primal Slayer]

2 hours ago, Mary0360 said:

I'm not really understanding why Arrow is being connected to a conversation about the DCEU; when it has nothing to do with the DECU problems nor is there any similarities between the two. In fact if we are going to try and link Arrow to anything, the producers have gone on the record as modelling Arrow on and using the Nolan verse as a source of inspiration. The Nolan verse which was a vastly successful franchise praised because of its character substance rather then comic continuity. 

 

In fact wasn't Arrow, and the rest of the verse, being praised for how well they handled Crisis on Earth X in an entertaining yet character building way then, at the time, Justice League handled their team up? I remember many reviews praising the Arrowverse more favourably then the DCEU after the crossover. I also remember seeing some reviewers praising the Arrowverse crossovers more favourably then the Marvel Defenders series. Crossovers that are usually focused primarily around Oliver and Arrow characters. So I really don't think Arrow is a connectable problem to DCEUs problems. That seems a stretch.

Where did I say the Arrowverse was a problem to DCEU? It's simply stated that the DCEU is similar to the Arrow (nothing said about Arrowverse)  in the fact that Snyder tried to build up the characters to who are they over several films but the problem is, movies is not the medium for that type of story telling and he is dealing with much bigger characters who are much more well known.

Oliver started out as The Hood, was broody as HELL, took him 3 seasons to become Green Arrow. 

Clark had the name of Superman but was broody as HELL, took him 3 movies to really become the Superman that everyone knew. 

So nothing was ever said against Arrow or the Arrowverse, it was the exact opposite, you can't replicate what they did on the big screen for such huge characters. 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Primal Slayer

[lemotomato]

21 minutes ago, Primal Slayer said:

Snyder tried to build up the characters to who are they over several films but the problem is, movies is not the medium for that type of story telling

And yet that's exactly what the MCU did. And they're thriving.

Edited January 30, 2018 by lemotomato

[Primal Slayer]

Just now, lemotomato said:

And yet that's exactly what the MCU did. And they're thriving.

That isn't what the MCU did. It didn't take 3 films for Captain America to be Captain America. 

[Mary0360]

I'm sorry wasn't Superman in the Superman costume by the first hour of his first film saving people? Didn't they refer to him as Superman in the first film. Wonder Woman was in costume saving people from the start of her film. Batman was in costume and had a reference to have been saving people for years. So I'm not understanding the whole three years to build up to Superman thing. 

[Primal Slayer]

1 minute ago, Mary0360 said:

I'm sorry wasn't Superman in the Superman costume by the first hour of his first film saving people? Didn't they refer to him as Superman in the first film. Wonder Woman was in costume saving people from the start of her film. Batman was in costume and had a reference to have been saving people for years. So I'm not understanding the whole three years to build up to Superman thing. 

He was in costume and that was about all. He was moody, he felt being Superman was more of a burden. That's not Superman, and not who the audience wanted to see. Wonder Woman had abandoned the world until she came back at the end of BvS and Patty retconned it as soon as she took over for the solo movie since that isnt who Wonder Woman is. 

[Hiveminder]

24 minutes ago, Primal Slayer said:

That isn't what the MCU did. It didn't take 3 films for Captain America to be Captain America. 

Captain America is probably one of the better characters for you to use as an example to prove your point because his character hasn’t changed very drastically. Still, the Steve Rogers from CA:TFA is not the Steve Rogers from CA:CW. Other characters in the MCU have gone through even more changes (Tony Stark for one). 

I think what you’re trying to say is that Marvel took more leeway with the characters in regards to matching their comics personas and was okay if the movie characters and comics characters didn’t totally match up, but DC tried to start their characters in a completely unfamiliar place to us and then have them develop over the course of the movies to become more like the characters from the comics that we’re familiar with. Am I wrong?

So you’re saying that where the DCEU failed, is where Arrow succeeded because Oliver started out as this darker take on GA, and then developed over the course of the show into someone with more resemblance to comicsGA. 

I don’t necessarily agree that ArrowOliver is much like what I know of comicsGA despite having the name now, and I don’t agree that that couldn’t have been done in the movies if DC had taken their time. Marvel may not have done exactly that, but they did build up and develop a whole universe of characters with tons of character development. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Hiveminder

[Mary0360]

8 minutes ago, Primal Slayer said:

He was in costume and that was about all. He was moody, he felt being Superman was more of a burden. That's not Superman, and not who the audience wanted to see. Wonder Woman had abandoned the world until she came back at the end of BvS and Patty retconned it as soon as she took over for the solo movie since that isnt who Wonder Woman is. 

Well then shouldn't the blame be put on Smallville then since they based 10 seasons of a show on a broody Superman who feels his powers are a burden. Or the New 52 comics that built a Superman who felt isolated from humanity. 

[Primal Slayer]

For the most part. The Marvel characters stayed true to their core. Steve Rogers wanted to save America from the very start, he has had plenty of ups and downs but he isn't going to walk away from his duties. Same can be said for Stark. He is still that same old snarky billionaire who loves to build and cares for others. The Marvel characters have grown but they arent and didn't start out on the opposite of the spectrum and still havent really gone against who they are. 

Arrow started Oliver at his darkest and now he is probably the happiest he has ever been, he's certainly not the same guy he was when we were first introduced to him. 

4 minutes ago, Hiveminder said:

Captain America is probably one of the better characters for you to use as an example to prove your point because his character hasn’t changed very different drastically. Still, the Steve Rogers from CA:TFA is not the Steve Rogers from CA:CW. Other characters in the MCU have gone through even more changes (Tony Stark for one). 

I think what you’re trying to say is that Marvel took more leeway with the characters in regards to matching their comics personas and was okay if the movie characters and comics characters didn’t totally match up, but DC tried to start their characters in a completely unfamiliar place to us and then have them develop over the course of the movies to become more like the characters from the comics that we’re familiar with. Am I wrong?

So you’re saying that where the DCEU failed, is where Arrow succeeded because Oliver started out as this darker take on GA, and then developed over the course of the show into someone with more resemblance to comicsGA. 

I don’t necessarily agree that ArrowOliver is much like what I know of comicsGA despite have the name now, and I don’t agree that that couldn’t have been done in the movies if DC had taken their time. Marvel may not have done exactly that, but they did build up and develop a whole universe of characters with tons of character development. 

7 minutes ago, Mary0360 said:

Well then shouldn't the blame be put on Smallville then since they based 10 seasons of a show on a broody Superman who feels his powers are a burden. Or the New 52 comics that built a Superman who felt isolated from humanity. 

Except I never put the blame on anyone outside of the DCEU. Smallville Clark wasnt this broody guy, he was pretty happy. But his entire 10 years was him becoming Superman, you can't spend 10 years doing that in film. And the New 52 was a failure, even DC admitted that.

[wingster55]

1 hour ago, Primal Slayer said:

, movies is not the medium for that type of story telling

Like a character going from a farm-boy to a big time Jedi-Knight who saves the galaxy in the original Star Wars? 

It can be done...if viewed patiently. 

[wingster55]

On 1/26/2018 at 10:30 PM, Miss Dee said:

So I just saw Thor: Ragnarok. While I thought the beginning was fine and the end kicked ass, the middle was draggy. But I think I could have handled the fact the prison was a big old diversionary plot tactic way more egregious than anything in The Last Jedi. I hated how they turned Thor into Tony-light, a snarky wiseass with shades of douchebaggery. That's not Thor's character as we've seen in the movies (maybe it's dead on to the comics, I don't know). And I hated how Banner was a whiny crybaby on the alien planet; that's not in character for him. Not to mention that becoming the Hulk forever is pretty much his worse nightmare - and they just introduced it for a few laughs! He turned into Hulk at the end...did he ever change back? I didn't see it. Does that mean he'll never be Bruce Banner again? Maybe, I don't know, let us know what happened there before ending the damn movie???

Yeah, I was not a fan of this movie. If this is the level of storytelling I can expect for Infinity War: yikes.

It got better with the fight in Asgard, as Thor was more like himself with the gravitas I associate with him. I don't mind Thor being funny - he cracked me up in The Avengers - but he's not a wisecracking kind of funny, or a silly kind of funny. I know Chris Hemsworth can do it; that's not the point. It was like someone watched him in Ghostbusters and went "That! Make Ragnarok more like that!"

Agreed. They wanted "humor" but it ruined his character and turned Thor into an idiot.  See that scene where he knocked himself out with a ball. 

Characters, damn it, characters. 

[statsgirl]

41 minutes ago, Primal Slayer said:

Arrow started Oliver at his darkest and now he is probably the happiest he has ever been, he's certainly not the same guy he was when we were first introduced to him. 

I'd argue he still is though. He started out with PTSD and unable to process his emotions enough to reach out to his friends and family but the guy who felt the burden to save the city at the cost of his own happiness, who is willing to sacrifice himself if that's what it takes to save others, is still there. Better balanced and grown emotionally, but still there.

[KirkB]

DC lacked patience. Marvel spent years setting up their shared universe. Giving Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America and Thor their own movies, and giving Black Widow a chance to shine through appearances in Iron Man and Captain America. Hawkeye got short-changed, only appearing in Thor, but overall they put in the work to set the stage before Avengers. DC, though, decided to give Superman a movie, then crammed Batman and Wonder Woman, along with a tiny bit of Aquaman, Flash and Cyborg, into BvS, before then going backwards and giving Wonder Woman her origin story, then dropped everyone into Justice League and expected the audience to care when only Superman and Wonder Woman had any real setup behind them.

Edited January 30, 2018 by KirkB

[way2interested]

2 minutes ago, KirkB said:

DC lacked patience. Marvel spent years setting up their shared universe.

Patience and time have nothing to do with it. GotG was able to introduce a ton of characters at once with no set up whatsoever and almost no connection to the MCU and still created a fine move. There's nothing to say JL couldn't have done the same thing. This comes down to just plain writing.

[wingster55]

7 minutes ago, KirkB said:

DC lacked patience. Marvel spent years setting up their shared universe. Giving Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America and Thor their own movies, and giving Black Widow a chance to shine through appearances in Iron Man and Captain America. Hawkeye got short-changed, only appearing in Thor, but overall they put in the work to set the stage before Avengers. DC, though, decided to give Superman a movie, then crammed Batman and Wonder Woman, along with a tiny bit of Aquaman, Flash and Cyborg, into BvS, before then going backwards and giving Wonder Woman her origin story, then dropped everyone into Justice League and expected the audience to care when only Superman and Wonder Woman had any real setup behind them.

I think they managed to do just fine with the stories of the characters in Justice League. Particularly Cyborg. Writing wasn't perfect but it goes back to DC anti-bias (case in point: the similarities in Civil War and BvS, and their own failures). 

[catrox14]

56 minutes ago, Primal Slayer said:

Except I never put the blame on anyone outside of the DCEU. Smallville Clark wasnt this broody guy, he was pretty happy. But his entire 10 years was him becoming Superman, you can't spend 10 years doing that in film. And the New 52 was a failure, even DC admitted that.

Isn't that what the build up to Infinity War is all about? 10 years of building characters in all the movies so we'll care if they all fight together against a common villain?  I mean that's what I got out of it.

[Primal Slayer]

5 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Isn't that what the build up to Infinity War is all about? 10 years of building characters in all the movies so we'll care if they all fight together against a common villain?  I mean that's what I got out of it.

That is building up to an event for something huge to happen to characters you care for. That is not the same as taking 10 years to bring Steve from skinny man to Captain America or a guy who wants to fight for truth and justice or Tony Stark from a drunk to a sober hero. 

[Primal Slayer]

30 minutes ago, wingster55 said:

Like a character going from a farm-boy to a big time Jedi-Knight who saves the galaxy in the original Star Wars? 

It can be done...if viewed patiently. 

Luke was still fighting for what he felt was right in the original Star Wars movies. He became more skilled and no one knew anything about him. I doubt the audience is going to wait 3 movies for Clark Kent to become Superman or any superhero. 

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, Primal Slayer said:

That is building up to an event for something huge to happen to characters you care for. That is not the same as taking 10 years to bring Steve from skinny man to Captain America or a guy who wants to fight for truth and justice or Tony Stark from a drunk to a sober hero. 

It seems like you're annoyed that Smallville actually did what they said they were going to do which was tell the origin of Clark Kent becoming Superman and stretched it to 10 years instead of doing it in 2 seasons?  I guess I don't see it as a problem to use the long form storytelling on TV when that's it's entire premise.  But that's just me.

BTW , I would have totally watched Steve and Bucky's friendship for 10 years that's for sure!

[Primal Slayer]

Just now, catrox14 said:

It seems like you're annoyed that Smallville actually did what they said they were going to do which was tell the origin of Clark Kent becoming Superman and stretched it to 10 years instead of doing it in 2 seasons?  I guess I don't see it as a problem to use the long form storytelling on TV when that's it's entire premise.  But that's just me.

BTW , I would have totally watched Steve and Bucky's friendship for 10 years that's for sure!

Quote me where I said anything about being annoyed about Smallville taking 10 years to get to Superman. I said it couldn't be done on the big screen. 

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, Primal Slayer said:

Quote me where I said anything about being annoyed about Smallville taking 10 years to get to Superman. I said it couldn't be done on the big screen. 

Okay I didn't quote you ? I'm reading your comments and it seems to me you're suggesting that it can't be done on the big screen because fans wouldn't go for it like they did with Smallville, and separately, that was a weakness in Smallville because it took 10 years to do it. If my take on your take is wrong, I apologize.  

That said, isn't that what they did with the Nolan Batman films just not starting from him being a boy like in Gotham? They just did it for his origins as an adult. And IMO they did it well.  Maybe I've dropped a thread in this discussion.  I dunno.

[Primal Slayer]

In Gotham we are seeing Bruce grow up and eventually become Batman. They have 23 episodes a season to do that on tv. Bruce became Batman in Batman Begins because you cant have 23 1hr movies to tell that story. You can have 3-2hr movies that further allow you to explore different aspects of the character, but you may only end up watching Batman Begins but you still get Batman by the end. 

[Miss Dee]

I prefer the TV version, when it comes to Batman. Gotham is the first time I've been truly invested in the journey of Bruce Wayne.

[BkWurm1]

9 hours ago, Primal Slayer said:

For the most part. The Marvel characters stayed true to their core. Steve Rogers wanted to save America from the very start, he has had plenty of ups and downs but he isn't going to walk away from his duties. Same can be said for Stark. He is still that same old snarky billionaire who loves to build and cares for others. The Marvel characters have grown but they arent and didn't start out on the opposite of the spectrum and still havent really gone against who they are. 

Arrow started Oliver at his darkest and now he is probably the happiest he has ever been, he's certainly not the same guy he was when we were first introduced to him. 

Except I never put the blame on anyone outside of the DCEU. Smallville Clark wasnt this broody guy, he was pretty happy. But his entire 10 years was him becoming Superman, you can't spend 10 years doing that in film. And the New 52 was a failure, even DC admitted that.

5

I would argue that Tony Stark is a totally changed man from who he was at the start of his first movie and changed some in every movie he starred in.  Kept his personality but all of his priorities changed. He was fatalistic in Iron Man 2, Stricken by PTSD in Iron Man 3, so bent on saving the word in the 2nd Avengers he almost destroyed it and was so penitent over that overstep that in Civil War he was now willing to let the government tell HIM what to do something nearly unimaginable in the first movie.    And Steve Rogers was literally the poster boy for Uncle Sam and over the course of his films, he's had all his illusions ripped away and is now a fugitive from the law.  And Thor I think also has evolved quite a bit since his first appearances.  He's actually humble.    

Conversely, I don't think DC movie verse Batman has changed really much at all.  Tiny bit less angry?  Wonder Woman had some fiddling with her backstory but her personality and choices remained the same.  And Superman was angsty and broody in Man of Steel, angsty and broody in BvS, and yeah, same in Justice League.  I think they've chosen the wrong personality points to hang his characterization on, but I felt he's been pretty consistent.  

As for Smallville, he was so broody and emo Clark's parents called his barn loft where he hung out, his fortress of solitude right away in the first episodes.  By the end of the 2nd season, he put on a redK ring in order to become a different person he was so unhappy with who Clark Kent had been.  He didn't want to come home because he assumed everyone would be better without him.  He typically blamed himself for most of the ills of the town.  Bouncing a ball alone in the dark was not uncommon.  End of season three, he once again was so unhappy and disillusioned with his life he turned his back on his parents (again) and went off to let Jor-El fix him or train him or something (in reality, it was completely take control of him in a brainwashed way).  Season 4 he tries for some personal fun but midway through the season he's brooding over his girlfriend's grave and at war with his former best friend and again is responsible for a meteor storm hitting Smallville. 

Season five when he gets his powers back he's back to brooding since he knows someone he loves is going to die and then dad dies and he grieves and decides to break up with his girlfriend for her own good because all he ever does is bring her pain.    Season six he talks to his mother about how lonely he is and almost lets an alien lobotomize him just so he could stay in a dream world. He kills a "zoner" he's so filled with anger and angst.  (apparently no one cares if it an alien?)

Season seven he lets Lex Luthor win because he spent so much time distracted and brooding over a comatose girlfriend. He was ready to just let Brainiac kill him as a newborn before he ever reaches earth he's so convinced he's nothing but trouble. Season 8 he ends by declaring Clark Kent is dead, rejecting an of his humanity.  In season 9 he wore all black (and a trenchcoat) and was referred to by news outlets as "Dark Clark" and almost joins forces with Zod.  Amanda Waller shames him over his treatment of his best ally.  In season ten he is still fighting against the darkness inside him, literally failing to pass the test at first.  He's rejected by Jor-El because of it.  

Smallville's Clark was 10 years of Clark Kent brooding, angsting, moping, grieving, whining (It's one of his superpowers per a season 5 episode), doubting, accusing, lashing out, being angry and generally feeling sorry for himself.  In between that, he found some moments of cheer.  

Edited January 30, 2018 by BkWurm1

[Mellowyellow]

OMG @BkWurm1 what a pill! He makes Oliver sound like a happy puppy! Did he at least swoon over someone like Oliver does constantly with Felicity?