Well, I like Routh on Arrow so far. But then, he's mostly been playing off of Emily Bett Rickards as Felicity, and she kinda brings out the best in everyone.
Supergirl TV Series is being work on.
- Thread starter yenny
- Start date
Or maybe it's about my opinion, which I'm entitled too. I don't let corporate board meetings tell me what my personal preferences should be. The likelihood that this will be a version of Supergirl with no Superman (established or otherwise) is just one tick against it in my personal decision as to whether or not to bother with this show. There's a lot of superhero product out there these days in movies and on TV, a lot of which I'm not terribly interested in. Most DC/WB TV properties fall in that category, and this is starting to look like it won't be an exception.
I hope that wasn't directed at me, since I never said that. First Gaith with his "girl-cooties" comment, now this. Is it possible to express a dissenting opinion in these parts without having your opinion misrepresented left and right? Let's try to tone down the rhetoric.
But now that you bring it up and show me that link...this is indeed beginning to look a lot like a take on Supergirl in which Superman doesn't exist and she's effectively displacing him, which includes using elements of his world.
He is? That's a pretty big demotion....
There are no small parts, only small actors.
I see what you did there.
It wasn't directed at anyone here, but was merely a comment on the cynicism that I'd seen elsewhere.
The skirt is hot.
I like the skirt.
(It's at least 4 times larger than Miss Martians Skirt, so pick you battles.)
Two things I didn't like...
1. The headband.
2. The Nipple shield.
I like the skirt.
(It's at least 4 times larger than Miss Martians Skirt, so pick you battles.)
Two things I didn't like...
1. The headband.
2. The Nipple shield.
I think I already put in a vote for the hot pants in this thread. The hot pants could counterbalance my reservations about her taking Superman's place. ("Girl-cooties" indeed...!)
Important to note is that like Clark, she is not fresh off the boat.
Kara is more perfectly American than Balki Bartokomous and all the delightful humour that fish out of water situations brings.
Kara is more perfectly American than Balki Bartokomous and all the delightful humour that fish out of water situations brings.
It definitely sounds like this is going in a very different direction with the character, but I'm not going to totally rule this out. So far I've been pretty happy with the DC shows the last few years, and Greg Berlanti, who works on Flash and Arrow, is working on this, so I am willing to give this the benefit of the doubt that this point.
This kind of reminds me of a story I just saw on CBR about the new Fantastic Four movie, where the writer was pointing out that just because something is different from the source material doesn't mean it's bad. I thinking/hoping that will be the case here.
And if this does end up just being a female Superman show, then I don't really see the problem. There is really nothing in Supergirl's backstory, or power set that requires her to have a Superman around. The only reason it really matters if he is around or not is because that is usually done, and a lot of comic book fans are traditionalists when it comes to these characters.
This kind of reminds me of a story I just saw on CBR about the new Fantastic Four movie, where the writer was pointing out that just because something is different from the source material doesn't mean it's bad. I thinking/hoping that will be the case here.
And if this does end up just being a female Superman show, then I don't really see the problem. There is really nothing in Supergirl's backstory, or power set that requires her to have a Superman around. The only reason it really matters if he is around or not is because that is usually done, and a lot of comic book fans are traditionalists when it comes to these characters.
^^^
Differences from the source material in moderation can work and sometimes improve upon the source material to make it work in a different medium (X-Men or Raimi's Spider-Man for example, or maybe Smallville). Too often in the past, studios have differed so much from the original source regarding comic book interpretations that it is obvious the name of the character is only used for advertising purposes. If you're going to make so many changes that the character and story are unrecognizable then why not just do something original?
Differences from the source material in moderation can work and sometimes improve upon the source material to make it work in a different medium (X-Men or Raimi's Spider-Man for example, or maybe Smallville). Too often in the past, studios have differed so much from the original source regarding comic book interpretations that it is obvious the name of the character is only used for advertising purposes. If you're going to make so many changes that the character and story are unrecognizable then why not just do something original?
People always say that, but if the adaptation is good enough, people tend to forgive it. The Kenneth Johnson Incredible Hulk TV series from the '70s/'80s strove to be as far from the source as possible, keeping nothing except the main character's last name (which was barely used outside the opening narration) and the fact that he changed into an angry (but mute) green muscleman. Johnson even tried to change the Hulk's color to red because it was more associated with anger, but was overruled by Stan Lee. (A Red Hulk? That'll never happen!) And yet it's beloved by Hulk fans to this day because it was so well-done. Whereas the contemporary Spider-Man TV series, which dropped the whole Uncle Ben backstory, never used Aunt May after the pilot movie, used none of the comics' supporting cast except Jameson, and changed Jameson into a more avuncular figure, is remembered poorly because it wasn't that well-done, and because the changes it made undermined the core of the character more than the changes to Hulk did. Spidey is defined by his atonement for Uncle Ben's death, and by his relationships with his supporting cast. The Hulk is defined mainly by the man-monster duality, the uncontrollable rage, the search for a cure, and the flight from unjust pursuit, and those were more or less retained.
So it's not like there's a certain amount of material you have to keep for the character to remain recognizable. It's about which aspects you keep. If you keep the few most fundamental qualities that define the character and give the audience reason to invest in them, then they're still recognizable even if you change everything else. And of course, it's also a matter of how good the end result is. Audiences are skeptical of change, but if the change works, most of them will accept it (although there will always be purists who refuse to).
Yeah even David E Kelley's idea of turning Wonder Woman into this sophisticated modern woman and corporate executive might have had a lot of potential and made for a really interesting show-- if the writing and execution hadn't been so horribly bad.
And I'm pretty sure Arrow has taken a lot of liberties and done a lot of things different from the Green Arrow comic books, but most comic fans still seem to love that show.
And I'm pretty sure Arrow has taken a lot of liberties and done a lot of things different from the Green Arrow comic books, but most comic fans still seem to love that show.
Yeah, the trick is to distinguish between catching the essence of the series and obsessing over trivia. The first is crucial; the second not so much so. And history suggests that audiences will forgive a lot if the filmed version works on its own terms.
Heck, the most recent cycle of Bat-movies took all sorts of liberties with the original comics, but are fan favorites--despite the fact that:
1) Bruce trains under Ra's al Ghul, which never happened in the comics.
2) The Scarecrow is an agent of Ra's.
3) Rachel Dawes appears nowhere in the comics.
4) They dispensed with the Joker's traditional origin and had him wearing white makeup instead.
5) Harvey Dent is is a romantic rival for Rachel's affections.
6) Two-Face gets a new origin, tying him to the Joker.
7) Two-Face dies.
5) Bane has a new origin, tying him to Talia and the League of Shadows. And doesnt' use Venom to increase his strength.
6) There's no Robin, Batgirl, or Bat-Hound.
And here's the thing: You just know that, had Batman Begins bombed, fans would be insisting that it failed because it took too many liberties with the mythos!
Heck, the most recent cycle of Bat-movies took all sorts of liberties with the original comics, but are fan favorites--despite the fact that:
1) Bruce trains under Ra's al Ghul, which never happened in the comics.
2) The Scarecrow is an agent of Ra's.
3) Rachel Dawes appears nowhere in the comics.
4) They dispensed with the Joker's traditional origin and had him wearing white makeup instead.
5) Harvey Dent is is a romantic rival for Rachel's affections.
6) Two-Face gets a new origin, tying him to the Joker.
7) Two-Face dies.
5) Bane has a new origin, tying him to Talia and the League of Shadows. And doesnt' use Venom to increase his strength.
6) There's no Robin, Batgirl, or Bat-Hound.
And here's the thing: You just know that, had Batman Begins bombed, fans would be insisting that it failed because it took too many liberties with the mythos!
Even in the comics GA has been all over the map. Batman like millionaire playboy with gimmicks, kid sidekick and cave. Poor street level liberal loudmouth. Grim and gritty aging vigilante with no trick arrows, who's willing to use lethal force. The show has borrowed from all of those. I'm sure the Supergirl show will borrow from several incarnations of that character as well.
Exactly The comics revise and revamp their characters and continuities all the time, so why should the TV versions be bound by a print "canon" that's always been pretty fluid to begin with?
Heck, Supergirl has been rebooted at least twice in the comics already!
An alien shape-changing blob from a pocket dimension, no less!
Who later became an angel or something?
Similar threads
