Supergirl TV Series is being work on.

[Guy Gardener]

Smallville + Arrow, it's possible that Oliver Queen could be as representative in the zeitgeist as Batman in the not too distant future.

Have they cast yet another Green Arrow for the JLA movies?

Did they have plans to introduce Oliver into Birds of Prey as Dinah's father in the unmade season 2?

 

[DigificWriter]

Is there a link you could provide where this comes from? I'd like to know more about that.

Ask and Ye Shall Receive:
FOX'S GOTHAM IS A BATMAN ORIGIN STORY AND WILL HAVE A CHRISTOPHER NOLAN-ESQUE TONE

There are other source articles for this info, but the IGN one is the first one I saw when I did a search, so that's why I'm linking to it.

If you don't want to read the entire article, BTW, here's the pertinent info from it:

Reilly followed up by saying that this would be a serialized show that will function on its own, separate from the Warner Brothers DC cinematic universe. "We own all the rights.That's what we're licencing," he said. "They brought us the entire franchise for a very healthy licence fee. We're not negotiating this piece meal. We have all of the underlying Batman rights for the entire franchise for this series."

What FOX and the Gotham showrunners got by paying a licensing fee is freedom from any of the "embargos" that had existed in the past, meaning that they're not 'hamstrung' by being unable to use a particular character or concept just because said character or concept is being featured elsewhere.

 

[Guy Gardener]

If that's true(which it is), then where the #### is Ace the Bat-Hound?!

 

[davejames]

The "My name is" intro is a Berlanti Productions aesthetic thing and has nothing to do with The CW. It will be very surprising if every episode of the show doesn't open with it.

Well, there are other CW shows that have used similar mythology whaddayoucallems, like The 100, Star-Crossed, Beauty and the Beast, and at least the first few episodes of iZombie. But there are shows on other networks that have them too. Agent Carter had one, for instance. It's not unique to any network or production company, it's just a modern TV convention that's taken the place of expository main title sequences.

I frankly find those intros pretty tiresome myself. And while I could see the necessity of it for Arrow (being a character people weren't familiar with who was given a pretty complicated backstory), it seems much less necessary for a show like Flash or Supergirl.

And having those intros followed up by the "previously on" segment is often even more annoying. Lol

 

[Christopher]

And having those intros followed up by the "previously on" segment is often even more annoying. Lol

There have been one or two shows where the "previously" montage was made part of the mythology intro, updating it every week. I think Agent Carter did that.

I think it's so odd and inefficient that so many shows do first an exposition intro, then a main title card, and then the cast credits over the first act. I mean, it used to be that the main title sequence served all three functions at once.

 

[cylkoth]

Is there a link you could provide where this comes from? I'd like to know more about that.

Ask and Ye Shall Receive:

Thank you. I got nothing like this when I googled "Gotham TV series".

 

[DigificWriter]

Thank you.

You're welcome. Opinion on Gotham's overall quality may be divided, but I personally think that not having to be concerned about being able to use a particular character or concept will ultimately end up making the series better.

As far as Supergirl goes, it hasn't been explicitly said that the showrunners have complete unrestricted access to anything and everything Super, but I think the chances are better than good that they do because the heavy level of investment CBS has put into the series makes me believe that they'll want to give the showrunners all the tools they can and not have to worry about negotiating for usage rights on a case-by-case basis, and because of the amount of direct references there seem to be to Superman-related things in the Pilot.

Time will tell, though.

 

[Reverend]

And having those intros followed up by the "previously on" segment is often even more annoying. Lol

There have been one or two shows where the "previously" montage was made part of the mythology intro, updating it every week. I think Agent Carter did that.

I think it's so odd and inefficient that so many shows do first an exposition intro, then a main title card, and then the cast credits over the first act. I mean, it used to be that the main title sequence served all three functions at once.

With episodic storytelling all you need to is convey the general theme and premise of the show since for the most part, it didn't matter if you missed the last few episodes or started watching in the third season.

With today's trend in highly serialised storytelling, that's no longer sufficient. There's basically only two ways to do it and it's either a "previously on..." prologue or dump awkward, mostly redundant exposition into the script. Babylon 5 took the latter option with some very wonky results.

That said, the rise of on-demand binge watching may put paid to that need altogether. Or at least one has the option of fast forwarding through the prologue altogether.

 

[davejames]

I think the reason for keeping Superman out of the picture now has more to do with Berlanti simply not wanting Supergirl to be overshadowed by him, than because of some supposed decree put in place by Warners not to use him.

Because if Warners really had a problem with the idea, it's doubtful they'd allow the CW to make a Flash series at the same time they're developing a Flash movie with a different actor.

 

[Samurai8472]

The pilot has leaked. It's pretty much a complete season premiere.

It even has breaks for commercials too.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Welcome to two or three days ago.

 

[Christopher]

I think the reason for keeping Superman out of the picture now has more to do with Berlanti simply not wanting Supergirl to be overshadowed by him, than because of some supposed decree put in place by Warners not to use him.

On the other hand, the fact that they did a Supergirl series rather than a Superman series seems to imply that they didn't have the option of doing the latter. Not that I agree with the sentiment, but most people in Hollywood would probably see Supergirl as a less desirable character for adaptation than Superman. So even if they have permission to reference Superman to an extent, there may be a preference to leave Superman himself mainly to the movies.

Because if Warners really had a problem with the idea, it's doubtful they'd allow the CW to make a Flash series at the same time they're developing a Flash movie with a different actor.

Except the series was already in the works before the movie decision was made, apparently. So it was too late to do anything about it. If the timing had been different, if the movie division had already started work on its Flash movie before the TV division developed its Flash spinoff, they might've been forbidden from doing the spinoff. After all, the movie division makes more money for WB, so they have more clout.

 

[DigificWriter]

The fact that Gotham exists - and has access to every single thing related to Batman - belies the idea that the Flash TV series wouldn't have been allowed to exist if the Flash movie had already been in development.

Even if there IS an embargo in place, I really do believe that Warner Bros. would've given CBS the option of doing what FOX did and paying a licensing fee that would exempt them - and Supergirl - from it.

 

[JD]

^Yeah, I have a feeling they aren't that concerned with movies and TV shows using the same characters at this point. I know The Flash show was first, but the higher ups in Warner had to already know the movie was a possibility by the time the show was in the works. If they were at all concerned about having two versions of The Flash on movies and TV, then I doubt they would have let them even consider doing a show.
The only limits I've heard about is that the Arrowverse shows have been told not to use any more Batman elements now that Gotham is on the air. I wonder if that was why they killed off Ra's, he does tend to be Batman villain?

 

[Christopher]

The fact that Gotham exists - and has access to every single thing related to Batman - belies the idea that the Flash TV series wouldn't have been allowed to exist if the Flash movie had already been in development.

Maybe. Except that while Gotham has access to characters and ideas from Batman, it doesn't actually feature Batman. A show about Detective Jim Gordon and preteen Bruce Wayne is not the same exact thing as a show about Batman, so it's not in direct competition with a movie about Batman. While it technically uses the same characters, it's not using them in the same way. It's skirting the edges, in the same way that a Supergirl series -- or a series about young Clark Kent in Smallville -- skirts the edges of using Superman. The Flash situation is different, because both the show and the movie are about Barry Allen running around as a costumed crimefighter called the Flash. And that's a direct similarity I'm not sure the movie division would've been okay with if their project had come first.

Phil Lord recently said about the Flash movie that they're "trying to carve out space for the movie that's apart from" the TV series. They're trying to avoid having the movie and the show be the same thing. That's the issue here -- not just whether they can use the character names, but whether the projects are distinct enough that neither seems redundant and thus fails to find an audience. The embargoes of the past were just a means to that end. (And really, given that desire on the filmmakers' part, I'm surprised they're evidently going with Barry Allen as their Flash. Why not, say, do a movie about Wally West inheriting the Flash mantle from his aging mentor Barry Allen? Although they might feel that's too similar to what Ant-Man is doing.)

 

[davejames]

On the other hand, the fact that they did a Supergirl series rather than a Superman series seems to imply that they didn't have the option of doing the latter. Not that I agree with the sentiment, but most people in Hollywood would probably see Supergirl as a less desirable character for adaptation than Superman. So even if they have permission to reference Superman to an extent, there may be a preference to leave Superman himself mainly to the movies.

Perhaps, although from all the interviews I've read I get the impression everybody involved (including CBS) was genuinely interested in making a Supergirl series, and not a Superman one. And not just because it was the only thing available to them.

In fact I think it was even said one of the head executives got a bit teary when the idea was being pitched to them, because the character meant so much to them as a young girl. And it's also easy to see why Berlanti would far prefer the challenge of doing a Supergirl series over a Superman one as well, since Supes has already been interpreted for the screen multiple times.

 

[Christopher]

Perhaps, although from all the interviews I've read I get the impression everybody involved (including CBS) was genuinely interested in making a Supergirl series, and not a Superman one. And not just because it was the only thing available to them.

In fact I think it was even said one of the head executives got a bit teary when the idea was being pitched to them, because the character meant so much to them as a young girl.

Well, then that's good to hear.

 

[Marc]

On the other hand, the fact that they did a Supergirl series rather than a Superman series seems to imply that they didn't have the option of doing the latter. Not that I agree with the sentiment, but most people in Hollywood would probably see Supergirl as a less desirable character for adaptation than Superman. So even if they have permission to reference Superman to an extent, there may be a preference to leave Superman himself mainly to the movies.

Perhaps, although from all the interviews I've read I get the impression everybody involved (including CBS) was genuinely interested in making a Supergirl series, and not a Superman one. And not just because it was the only thing available to them.

In fact I think it was even said one of the head executives got a bit teary when the idea was being pitched to them, because the character meant so much to them as a young girl. And it's also easy to see why Berlanti would far prefer the challenge of doing a Supergirl series over a Superman one as well, since Supes has already been interpreted for the screen multiple times.

2 feature films and 1 tv series in the past decade alone and I doubt another superman tv series could have brought anything new to the table.

 

[DigificWriter]

The only limits I've heard about is that the Arrowverse shows have been told not to use any more Batman elements now that Gotham is on the air.

I have no idea where you got this idea from because I can't find any evidence of it actually being a 'thing' other than a statement from Marc Guggenheim regarding Deadshot being 'off the table for the nonce' that, honestly, is so incredibly vague that it could mean anything.

 

[JoeZhang]

I found this:

Arrow actress Willa Holland (Thea Queen/Speedy) recently explained why Harley Quinn was missing from season 3 and that fans should lose all hope of seeing the character in the upcoming seasons of the show.

Talking at the MCM Comic Con in London, Holland had this to say about the original plans for Harley Quinn in Arrow: "We had big plans for Harley. But, I guess something came down from DC execs that told us to shut it down," the actress revealed to disappointed fans. "I mean we had that tease with the pigtails and the ARGUS outfit but, we'll never see it. We would love to Harley in Arrow but it will never happen."

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/arrow-seas...face-batman-villain-harley-quinn-show-1502776

Although "I guess..."