RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,686
Posts: 5,430,588
Members: 24,826
Currently online: 473
Newest member: Old Man 51


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy

Science Fiction & Fantasy Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Firefly, vampires, genre books and film.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 11 2013, 01:35 PM   #76
Icemizer
Fleet Captain
 
Icemizer's Avatar
 
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

Green Lantern would be fairly easy to do on a TV budget these days. The actual visual effects can be done fairly cheaply with todays technology. You would ditch the CGI costume from the movie for a practicle one and that right there is a huge savings in time and money. The series would be mostly set on Earth with a few sets for Oa. Villian/Alien of the week would be the biggest production cost but no more so than say Defiance will rack up.
The 60's Batman had very good production values for its time, much more so than the 70's Spiderman had.
Icemizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11 2013, 01:58 PM   #77
Gaith
Rear Admiral
 
Gaith's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

The Overlord wrote: View Post
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?
Well, one could do a hybrid show: live-action dialogue scenes and blatantly animated action sequences. I seem to remember some very short-lived UPN show circa 2001 trying this... something about lady ninja samurais or what-not.

Would I give such a mixture a shot? Sure. Would the general public go for it? I very much doubt it.
Gaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11 2013, 04:20 PM   #78
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

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.


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.

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.

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.


What about the Catwoman movie, shouldn't an adaptation at least honor the spirit of the original work?
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).


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?
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.


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


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.


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.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11 2013, 05:45 PM   #79
The Overlord
Captain
 
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
Old April 11 2013, 05:56 PM   #80
The Overlord
Captain
 
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

Gaith wrote: View Post
The Overlord wrote: View Post
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?
Well, one could do a hybrid show: live-action dialogue scenes and blatantly animated action sequences. I seem to remember some very short-lived UPN show circa 2001 trying this... something about lady ninja samurais or what-not.

Would I give such a mixture a shot? Sure. Would the general public go for it? I very much doubt it.
That might work, but as you said I don't think the general public would go for it. Plus I think it would take a huge budget and a great talent to make that work.

Icemizer wrote: View Post
Green Lantern would be fairly easy to do on a TV budget these days. The actual visual effects can be done fairly cheaply with todays technology. You would ditch the CGI costume from the movie for a practicle one and that right there is a huge savings in time and money. The series would be mostly set on Earth with a few sets for Oa. Villian/Alien of the week would be the biggest production cost but no more so than say Defiance will rack up.
The 60's Batman had very good production values for its time, much more so than the 70's Spiderman had.
I think you are being overly optimistic, I didn't think the aliens or the GL constructs looked over good in the movie and that movie cost a ton. They would likely look even worse on a TV budget, I think you would need a special effects genius to make that work on TV and even then it be pretty doubtful.
The Overlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11 2013, 06:18 PM   #81
Guy Gardener
Fleet Admiral
 
Guy Gardener's Avatar
 
Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

How expensive is it to get interns to draw green constructs directly into the film with a green sharpie marker pen?
__________________
"Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft."

Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz
Guy Gardener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11 2013, 06:51 PM   #82
marksound
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Planet Carcazed
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

Overlord, you repeatedly use the phrase "take something interesting in the comics and make it less interesting in the TV show," or variations thereof. To whom exactly is it "less interesting"? Besides yourself, obviously.

Just curious.
marksound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11 2013, 07:20 PM   #83
The Overlord
Captain
 
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

Carcazoid wrote: View Post
Overlord, you repeatedly use the phrase "take something interesting in the comics and make it less interesting in the TV show," or variations thereof. To whom exactly is it "less interesting"? Besides yourself, obviously.

Just curious.
Well that's a matter of opinion of course, I can't speak for everyone, just my experience with these shows. If some people think say Smallville is as, if not more interesting as the comics, good on them, there is lots of people who don't think that. This thread is about opinions, I can't objectively measure what makes something more interesting then something else, that is impossible, I can only express my opinion on the subject.

So what you want me to say, of course is this is my opinion, that's the point. But have all the changes made in TV versions of the comics have been for the better? Is there not a lot of room for debate on which changes worked and which ones didn't?
The Overlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11 2013, 07:35 PM   #84
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

The Overlord wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
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...
None of them. That is the whole point -- that there are too many differences among different shows to assume you can generalize from any single example.

, 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.
See, you're making the exact same mistake right there. It was successful by The CW's standards because The CW is a tiny network. By any other broadcast network's standards, its ratings would've guaranteed its failure. This is why you can't generalize. The networks are not identical and interchangeable. The budgets, the standards of success, the level of competition, they're different for each network, for each timeslot, for each show. There is no universal formula -- that's what I've been trying to explain to you. Each situation is different.


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.
Again you're resorting to lazy stereotypes and false generalizations. Some shows are more faithful to the source than others; some movies are more faithful to the source than others. It's case by case. If you can't recognize that, you'll never get a clue.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11 2013, 07:59 PM   #85
The Overlord
Captain
 
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

Christopher wrote: View Post
The Overlord wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
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...
None of them. That is the whole point -- that there are too many differences among different shows to assume you can generalize from any single example.

, 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.
See, you're making the exact same mistake right there. It was successful by The CW's standards because The CW is a tiny network. By any other broadcast network's standards, its ratings would've guaranteed its failure. This is why you can't generalize. The networks are not identical and interchangeable. The budgets, the standards of success, the level of competition, they're different for each network, for each timeslot, for each show. There is no universal formula -- that's what I've been trying to explain to you. Each situation is different.
Sure, but you can always point to individual examples to point out trends in TV and movies and from my perspective some of these trends hold true, like some of the corner cutting and taking more liberities with the source material found in the TV series. Since I have not seen a live action super hero show that has wowed me, what can I take from that experience with them?

Even some of the super hero TV series that were original content and were on networks with bigger budgets, were still awful: Heroes after the first season, the Cape, No Ordinary Family.

There is only so many times one can get burned before one gets cynical about the whole idea. Its kinda like video games and movie adaption, there has never been a good one, so when one announced, you get cynical about the whole idea.

Maybe with Arrow and the new SHIELD this might turn around, but there is still ways to go.

I actually want to like live action super hero TV shows, but the shows often make it really hard for me to like them.


Christopher wrote: View Post
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.
Again you're resorting to lazy stereotypes and false generalizations. Some shows are more faithful to the source than others; some movies are more faithful to the source than others. It's case by case. If you can't recognize that, you'll never get a clue.
Sure I am just saying I have not seen a TV series that has really impressed me the way some of the movies have. Some of the movies are really bad, but some are really good and I have not seen a really a good live action super hero TV show.

I don't think of any shows you mentioned as really great TV. That is just my opinion, but that is the one I am sticking with.
The Overlord is offline   Reply With Quote
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.
__________________
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it is not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 12 2013, 07:17 AM   #87
theenglish
Rear Admiral
 
theenglish's Avatar
 
Location: Suriname
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

I don't think it is really about showing super powers that is the difficulty, but rather the frequency of the effects shots. Any super-hero show would have to be drama based rather than action based as the effects shots would be limited by the budget.

But creative writers should be able to handle this. Some of the best Trek episodes ever, were bottle episodes with extremely limited effects. It forced the writers to step up their game and not be able to rely on the wow factor.
theenglish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 12 2013, 10:20 AM   #88
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

The Overlord 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.
Incorrect across the board. Dozier's Batman was a very expensive series to produce, as an entire comic world had to be built with more than surplus computer consoles. Dozier (and ABC) wanted to take full advantage of the then-sales gimmick of color TV, while realizing that the only way to make the series appear to be a comic leaping out of the page was to spend money where it mattered.

From the hero (& villain) costumes, the gadgets, vehicles, and celebriity guest stars (who were not going to appear on some low rent series), the series was one of the most fully realized version of a comic ever produced, and to this day, few have come as close (in appearance) as this show to its era of comics.
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 12 2013, 03:33 PM   #89
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

theenglish wrote: View Post
I don't think it is really about showing super powers that is the difficulty, but rather the frequency of the effects shots. Any super-hero show would have to be drama based rather than action based as the effects shots would be limited by the budget.

But creative writers should be able to handle this. Some of the best Trek episodes ever, were bottle episodes with extremely limited effects. It forced the writers to step up their game and not be able to rely on the wow factor.
Exactly. The point is not to duplicate, but to adapt -- to take the idea of superheroes but tell the stories in a different way, one that's tailored for live-action TV. That means focusing more on ideas and characters rather than action and spectacle, but TV science fiction and fantasy have been doing that successfully for generations.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 12 2013, 04:15 PM   #90
Mr. Adventure
Admiral
 
Mr. Adventure's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Adventure
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

^^ I think they need to plan ahead to make it work. I think Smallville and Heroes had moments where they didn't think the endgame through at the beginning and then painted themselves in a corner when it came time to actually deliver a pay off and couldn't deliver. Something ain't right when we were snarkily predicting just how lame the finales were going to be.
Mr. Adventure is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.