I actually am looking forward to that. I've been wondering if some of the stuff that's started happening with Luke is already pushing him in that direction. The problem when you have big supporting cast who isn't involved with the superheroing, is that after a while you tend to end up with a lot of their story arcs degrading into melodramatic bullshit just to give them something to do, and when they do get involved in the superheroing, they end up just being targets for the bad guys every week. Jimmy and Lois in the George Reeves Superman are a perfect example of the later. When they suit up themselves they get to be involved as an equal, rather than sitting on the sidelines with nothing interesting to do or being a victim who constantly has to be saved. Yeah, I can see that. I've noticed the formula, but I find the characters themselves unique enough that I'm not that bothered by it.
Superman II is probably the better "superhero movie," if the first is the better film. And I feel Lester's humor in the third one is really under-appreciated - but then I'm the kind of person who can smile at the fighting don't walk sign. Also, Anette O'Toole. The fourth isn't nearly as terrible as people make it out to be. The entire Reeve oeuvre is pretty great, really. But again, films not TV.
What is good writing to you? I don't apply the Oscar/Emmy/Golden Globe metric to CW shows, they are like fast food - easy to get and tasty but ultimately not good in the long run. I wish they were better, it can be done but most shows i consider with better writing are on Streaming Services and have much shorter seasons, forcing them to write tighter and cut superfluous elements like the villain of the week. With broadcast TV it's a different animal and having a show with only 3 cast members over 22 episodes can't work - it would be boring and no amount of good writing could fill 22 episodes without starting and completing several storylines. I'm trying to come up with shows that have such a limited cast like the Superman movies (Reeves + Daily Planet group vs. Luthor and a few sidekicks) but can't come up with one. Every TV show i know had an ensemble cast be it a comedy, crime or drama show. There's always the lead character and 2-3 close supporting characters and a wider recurring cast group - that's how it's done since TV shows existed so why apply a different metric now to Superhero shows? Even in solo series comics the Superhero always had a supporting group - his/her family, other heroes and people they work with. Batman has Alfred, his extended "Bat Family", Gordon and other Superheroes, Superman had Lois, Jimmy, Perry and lord knows who else currently (don't read current comics so i'm out of date).
Aren't they shows made for teenagers? Which is why the adult characters act like teenagers and thus why they feel 'off' to many adult viewers? I tried to watch a couple but the characters are so insipid it was hard going.
I would say teenage to college age and kids of course. Granted that is the case with the MCU and most comic book stuff. Also with Star Wars and Star Trek a little bit though Trek tends to cast a wider net also going for the adults as well. Lots of this stuff you have to enjoy by embracing your inner child. Jason
Teens are too cool for this stuff. Also teens don't buy %%%t. Look at the advertising. The advertising matches the largest demographics of the show, since this is the audience that those advertisers want.
I'm surprised they all lasted this long. Having dozens of Comic movies and tv shows have diluted comic related productions as a whole. Soon the MCU will start to exhibit the same fatigue. I got bored with superheros long ago. I haven't even watched any DC shows. Just so much product coming out of Hollywood nowadays (more than ever before) and so much of it is superhero and scifi stuff. Who the heck even has time to watch it all??? I think the days of iconic TV shows and movies are long gone.
It is being pushed by the studios because the Superhero genre is a safe bank for now - even the bad ones still make profit, as long as that is the case they are here to stay and there's tons of material that hasn't made it to the screen. Some shows have shorter life spans and are gone after 2-3 seasons but others stay for their full 7 season run though CW will have a major problem soon when their current main series end their runs, i.e. Flash, Supergirl, Legends and they have so far failed to establish follow up shows that have the ability to stay ( i don't watch Black Lightning, maybe that show has a chance as i see here it may be good). Also what does iconic actually mean? A show or movie that defines the genre it is in? That would be hard to do as all genres one can think of have already been established and "iconicized" - SF has Star Trek and Star Wars, comedy has a much broader appeal ranging from I love Lucy from the 50s through the 70s with Mary Tyler Moore, 80s with Taxi, Cheers and into the 90s with Friends etc. I think Arrow would fit into this when it comes to superhero shows as it started the aptly named Arrowverse where DC reigned the TV screen until Marvel got it's house sorted and released TV material (though Shield, as good as it was in the middle of its run couldn't compete with the Arrowverse and the Netflix shows are set apart). So the ball will roll on as long as it makes money and Hollywood truly runs into the ground but i'm in a similar boat as a big Marvel fan - that epic 22 movie run has concluded with Endgame and i can't bring up this much excitement for the new movies as i used to. Maybe Marvel can do it again and still release good new movies and form a new storyline (if at all), we'll have to see. WB on the other hand never truly lifted off the ground like Marvel, their tentpole movies with Superman and Batman fell flat and the only ones that are actually good were Aquaman and Wonder Woman (Aquaman by the charisma of its lead and Wonder Woman by both Gadot and an actually decent story).
These days? Nothing. The word is so overused that any substance it once had has been diluted into meaningless banality.
Ok.. i'll give you Hellboy (which i actually thought wasn't too bad) but DC and Marvel have yet to land a financial dud even though DC has produced more crap than good ones they are still profitable. Questions remains how long can the Superhero wave actually go? Western movies were made for decades for example but they were not that expensive to make i think if you don't add A list actors like John Wayne and their salaries (but then the name alone would ensure a profitable movie). As long as they are interesting to me i keep watching them - hell, most of the MCU movie have a similar recipe and they are still good for the most part.
Actually I can think of 10 great shows right now that have nothing to do with comics or even genre stuff. 1 Better Call Saul 2 Succession 3 The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel 4 Better Things 5 Atlanta 6 Kidding 7 Barry 8 Curb your Enthusiasm 9 On Becoming a God in Central Florida 10 Insecure I didn't even bring up Ozark which I haven't seen yet and people keep talking about how great it is. There is stuff out their. Just got to go look for it. Jason
Again, that's "Reeve." Adventures of Superman. 102 episodes. Reeves (this time) + Daily Planet group + Inspector Henderson. ssosmcin listed a bunch of other examples uptopic, even just limiting it to superhero shows. This is absolutely not "how it's done since TV shows existed." The ensemble cast approach to series television really only became a standard in the '80s, after Hill Street Blues established a whole new format for "quality" TV drama. Before that, it was mostly just a small core cast group, generally a lead character plus a supporting cast you could count on one hand. Again, see ssosmcin's representative list of shows (some of which postdate HSB, so even its considerable influence was hardly universal). Now, you can argue it's an older format and approach, and that may well be true. But it's factually not the case that large ensembles have been the standard since TV shows existed.
The Arrowverse has produced 28 seasons and 556 episodes in 7 1/2 years with six more seasons coming in 2021. It's not surprising it's a bit paint by the numbers. It's still going strong though, the CW ratings are almost irrelevant, those shows make money through streaming and international deals, the CW as a network isn't in danger either, CW shows are very profitable.
Nah, only the first Superman movie was truly good. Superman II had too many characterization problems with Lois and Clark and Superman III and IV are enjoyable but not good films.
As an aside, SupermanHomepage.com recently did a poll on its Twitter, asking, "Which of the following has not played Superman?" The choices were Brandon Routh, Henry Cavill, Christopher Reeves, and Kirk Alyn. Obviously, it was a trick question. Because, duh. Nevertheless, more people picked Kirk Alyn.
By design. Berlanti, et al, use the same character templates and other simlariities on most of their series over and over again, and whatever their agenda happens to be, it fails due to the inability to write coherent stories that feel like the source to some degree. Agreed. Yes.