View Single Post
Old April 11 2013, 06:45 PM   #79
The Overlord
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

Christopher wrote: View Post
The Overlord wrote: View Post
Frankly as I said before I didn't think Smallville had very good VFX...
And as I said in response, it makes no sense to use that very low-budget show as an exemplar for TV superhero shows in general.
Then what show should I use as an exemplar of TV shows, that show was on the longest running super hero tv show and the most successful, so its pretty easy to use that as an exemplar. If I can't use that as an exemplar, what would I use?

Christopher wrote: View Post
And secondly by your logic, wouldn't all the changes made to Fantastic Four in their movies be okay?
No, of course not. I'm not saying all changes are good. I'm saying all changes are not bad. I'm saying that quality is not determined by whether a work is faithful or different -- it's determined, quite simply, by whether it's good. A faithful version can be good or bad. An altered version can be good or bad. People keep trying to concoct these pat formulas and blanket generalizations -- a work is good if it does A and is bad if it does B -- and they're nonsense. A work is good if it's good. Period. It really is as simple as that.

The FF movies didn't fail because they changed things. On the contrary, a lot of the things they kept faithful to the comics were still mediorce in execution. They failed because they just weren't that well-done.
There is certain iconic things you wouldn't want to change because that is what made work interesting in the place. If you change Dr. Doom into something else, you are missing something, like less iconic characters like Sebastian Shaw and Whiplash are more malleable.

Christopher wrote: View Post
Really, this should be obvious by now. The movie that started the modern era of successful, high-quality Marvel films was X-Men, and X2 and First Class are also acclaimed as some of the best Marvel movies. But they're also incredibly unfaithful to the details of the source. They've changed everything. They've changed the relative ages of characters and the order in which they joined the team. They've changed their nationalities, changed their backstories, changed their relationships. But they told good stories, and that's what matters. They were different from the originals, but the different thing they created was good in its own right, so people liked it.
Again I don't have a problem with change, if change it into something more interesting. I don't have a problem with the changes they made to say William Stryker or Sebastian Shaw in the X-Men movies.

But problem is often in the TV shows, they take something interesting and replace it with something less interesting. How is Smoke Demon Darkseid better then the regular Darkseid, how is Pollux better than Reverse Flash in the comics? What is a better telling of the X-Men saga, the X-Men movies or Mutant X?

Christopher wrote: View Post
Conversely, Green Lantern failed because it was far too faithful to the comics -- because it was so obsessed with cramming in references to decades' worth of convoluted comics continuity that it forgot that it was more important to tell a good, straightforward story.
Well yes and no, Parallax was pretty different from his comic book counter part, they gave Hector Hammond some daddy issues he didn't have in the comics. There were differences, I don't think Hal Jordan quit his training after a day, Hal Jordan was way more likable in the comics.

Again I am not some uber fan boy who thinks everything has to exactly like it is in the comics, the problem is the TV shows almost always take something interesting in the comics and make it less interesting in the TV show. That is why I don't like the TV shows in general.

Christopher wrote: View Post
It's interesting you should put it that way. Let's look at what Halle Berry's Catwoman really was. It was essentially a spinoff from the world of Tim Burton's Batman Returns. In that movie, Selina Kyle "died," was surrounded by cats, and arose as a transformed person with new confidence and feline powers. The Catwoman movie chose to interpret that as a supernatural transformation that had happened to many different women over the ages, and made its heroine implicitly the next person to undergo the same process that Selina had undergone in Burton's movie.

So let me ask you: Was Burton's Catwoman honoring the spirit of the original? The film changed Selina's character radically. It also changed Penguin radically, from an urbane, diminutive thief to some kind of sewer mutant. Fidelity to the source was not an issue there -- but people seemed to like the movie (though I personally think it's a mess)..
I think you are asking me the wrong question, because I have a luke warm response to Batman Returns, I didn't like movie Penguin very much and I guess Catwoman in that movie was okay, but I think I like the Catwoman in the Dark Knight Rises better. I do think making that movie a bit closer to the comics might have been better.

Christopher wrote: View Post
Exactly -- "if you don't replace them with something interesting." That means that if you do replace them with something interesting, it'll work just as well or better than the original. Again, it's not about change vs. fidelity, it's simply about telling a good story vs. telling a weaker story..
The problem is the TV shows do that, a lot. That is why I tend not to like them.

Christopher wrote: View Post
No, because that's just one part of the equation. TV is a business, and as in any business, success is about making enough profit to offset your overhead. The higher the ratings a show gets, the bigger a budget it can sustain. The Flash's ratings were hurt by its timeslot and the frequent preemptions, and that kept it from making enough profit to offset its cost. But if its ratings had been strong enough, it could've stayed on the air as a high-budgeted show. These are not things you can make simpleminded generalizations about. You need to consider the interplay of numerous factors.
It still was an important factor. I think you are being overall generous to that show, it was okay at best, its not like it was great, it had quite few problems, as indicated by the review I posted.

Christopher wrote: View Post
I think you are pretty generous if you are saying the Adam West show had good production values. Bad production values were part of the camp appeal of that show, there was a lot of paper mache on that show.
Where the third season is concerned, you'd have a point, but you're absolutely wrong about the first two. Rememeber, this was a sitcom. Compared to any other sitcom on the air at the time, it was amazingly elaborate in its set designs, props, costumes, special effects, and stunt work. Don't forget, stunt sequences are complicated and expensive things to do. The minute-long fight sequences they did could easily take a day or two to shoot, and they did two or three of them per week! Not to mention that in the first season they had to spend extra money on optical effects to superimpose the BIFF-BAM-POWs -- which is why in the second season they switched to cutting in intertitles silent-movie style.
I still think you are being far too generous to most of these shows, Flash is not a great TV show, it was flawed TV show that had a few moments, it wasn't amazing. I don't think I am willing to be as generous as you are towards these shows, which I is why I generally don't care about live action super hero TV shows.

Christopher wrote: View Post
And could you really do something like Green Lantern and the Fantastic Four on a TV budget?
Not easily, but it would be far more viable today than ten years ago. And there are certainly plenty of other superheroes that could be done more easily. Again, blanket generalizations don't make sense.
Except I have said as much, that is why Arrow tends to be the best of the bunch, but its hardly riveting. But I don't think we are at the point where most super heroes can work on a TV budget, may be that will be different in a decade or two, maybe not, it is not the case now.

Another problem is, the TV producers often seem to less respect for the source material then the movie makers do. I actually think a Punisher TV show on HBO would be pretty good, but for a while Fox was in talks to make a Punisher TV show and it sounded terrible. Look at the recent Wonder Woman pilot, it was god awful. Most of the TV producers seem to chuck out all the stuff that made the comic good and replace it with stuff that makes it bland generic network TV.
The Overlord is offline   Reply With Quote