View Single Post
Old April 12 2013, 06:17 AM   #86
JD
Admiral
 
JD's Avatar
 
Location: Arizona, USA
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

The Overlord wrote: View Post
JD wrote: View Post
I don't really feel like searching the thread for specific quotes, but a lot of people were bringing up the limited budget for TV when talking about superheroes on TV, I don't see that being that much of a problem. I think shows like the CSIs, Once Upon A Time, Supernatural, and the BSG reboot have shown that if you have the right resources you can still do some pretty impressive stuff on a TV budget. Sure it might not be as impressive as Avengers, but it's not totally impossible to get accurate representations of the comic book heroes powers on TV. I thought Smallville managed to good powers VFX over the year.
That was me.

Frankly as I said before I didn't think Smallville had very good VFX, because got things like smoke demon Darkseid and a fight between Doomsday and Clark that happens off screen and that was the big thing that was built up for season 8.

Green Lantern and the Fantastic Four would be hard to do a live action movie, how would make those characters work on a TV budget? Would they just never use their powers or fight any of their iconic villains?

You can't have a good adaptation of something, if they can't do some of the basic things from the comics on the TV screen.

I think that is why Arrow, works as a TV show, because it deals with a guy without powers, fighting other guys without powers, its just a bunch of guys with gimmicks. Though frankly Arrow is only an okay show, its not great.

Christopher wrote: View Post

You've made your personal opinion clear, but obviously no television show or movie is made to satisfy the tastes of a single individual (aside from its own creator). I'm not talking about me, and I'm certainly not talking about you. I'm talking about the audience in the aggregate, because that's what's relevant when we're talking about the popularity or success of a work of mass entertainment.




Well, aside from the fact that the word is adaptation rather than "adaption"... no. The word "adapt" means "change to fit a new context." It is not the purpose of an adaptation to exactly duplicate the original. If you want the original, just read or watch the original! The point of doing an adaptation is to create something that takes the concepts or characters of the original in a new and different direction, that offers a fresh angle or perspective on the ideas. Of course things are going to have to be changed when a work is adapted to a new medium or format. Often, characters will be dropped or added or combined or reinterpreted. It happens all the time.
Actually both words are valid, though one is far more common then the other:

http://grammarist.com/usage/adaption-adaptation/

So maybe you should be a bit more careful before you nitpick someone else's grammar.

And secondly by your logic, wouldn't all the changes made to Fantastic Four in their movies be okay? Doesn't cloud Galactus and corporate Dr. Doom change things to a point, that the work is no longer really the FF anymore? What about the Catwoman movie, shouldn't an adaptation at least honor the spirit of the original work?

That's the problems I had with the changes in Smallville, they changed from the comics and replaced with things that were less interesting. I don't have a problem changing things to make it work in another medium, as long as those changes are as interesting or more interesting than what was done in the comics, not less interesting. I had no problems with the changes to Sebastian Shaw and Whiplash in the movies, but I didn't like the changes to Dr. Doom in the movies and Darkseid in Smallville.





Except if those characters play important role and you don't replace them with something interesting, can't it argued that the adaptation has suffered a bit? That is the problem I have with Smallville and the lesser comic book movies, they got rid of interesting ideas and replaced them with something less interesting.





Actually only 3 villains from the comics were in the TV series and they were kinda paired downed versions of the characters. Trickster was the best of the change, TV Mirror Master and Captain Cold were okay, but not great.

Really "Pollux" was a a poor man's version of Reverse Flash, but since he was simpleton rather then a psychopath like the comic book Reverse Flash, he was far less interesting. There is an example of taking something and replacing it with something less interesting.

I would agree with this review: the show had its moments, but ultimately was a failed experiment, at best it was okay:

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/the_flash/news/?a=50957




If high budget demands were part of the problem, doesn't prove my point?



But now see that is the kind of the logic creates Catwoman movies, that an adaptation can change anything it wants, shouldn't an adaptation honor the spirit of the original work as best it can? I didn't think Smallville did that for the most part.

Christopher wrote: View Post
How many super hero TV shows have had great production values?
In comparison to other television shows of their eras? Several. The Adam West Batman had impressive visuals and production design and very impressive action for a 1960s sitcom, although the third-season budget was slashed and the production suffered. The Bixby Hulk was an elaborate production for its time with extensive location work and heavy stunt work making it a very expensive show. The Flash, as I've said, had cutting-edge VFX from some of the same people who worked on Star Trek: TNG; a superbly designed and executed Flash costume; and great set design. And I was quite impressed by the VFX on the short-lived 1991 Human Target series from the same producers as The Flash -- they did some extraordinary work with split-screen and doubling effects, rivaling the best work along those lines that had ever been done onscreen up to that time.
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.

And could you really do something like Green Lantern and the Fantastic Four on a TV budget? Frankly those are tricky to do in a movie, it be impossible to do them on a TV budget at this point in time, unless they never use their powers, which kinda undermines the premise of these characters. Why would GL or Human Torch almost never use their powers and would you do the Thing on a TV budget or Mr. Fantastic's powers?

Likewise an Iron Man show, were Tony Stark barely ever puts on the armor doesn't feel like a good adaptation of the comics or sounds like an interesting show.
I don't really see where the stuff we see in the comics would be that much harder to do than what shows like Fringe, Once Upon a Time do, or Defiance appears to be doing on a regular basis. What exactly is it about superhero powers that is so much harder to do than all of the tech, powers, or creatures on Fringe, the magic or CGI characters and creatures on OUAT, or the aliens and new Earth environments on Defiance.
__________________
Over the course of many encounters and many years, I have successfully developed a standard operating procedure for dealing with big, nasty monsters. Run away. Me and Monty Python.
Harry Dresden - Blood Rites (The Dresden Files #6)
JD is offline   Reply With Quote