Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Enterprise is Great, May 16, 2018.
Cool, but I have one question. What’s EPIX?
Premium channel owned by Starz...
DC Comics seems hellbent on doing shows or prequels about their flagship characters without really featuring their flagship characters. And if they do appear, it's only tangentially so.
Although now that I think about it, I wouldn't be too disappointed in a Hippolyta prequel set on Themyscira, with lots of Greek mythology thrown in.
It's a prequel to Gotham from the same showrunner, Bruno Heller, and his director/producing partner Danny Cannon.
So... an unnecessary prequel of an unnecessary prequel from the guys that made Rome and The Mentalist (but fell off a cliff creatively speaking following The Mentalist's amazing Season 3 finale/should-have-been-series-finale) about Alfred facing off against Jack the Ripper's grandkids.
So, boobs then? I mean, what can they do violence-wise that we haven't seen on Gotham? And could it possibly be more unhinged than Gotham?
"Hold my beer." --Bruno Heller
Warning, warning...Pedantic alert...
Epix is solely owned by MGM, one of it's 3 original founding partners. Lionsgate sold its one third stake to them after buying Starz, and Paramount sold theirs shortly afterwards.
Oh. Do they get the MGM movies first then?
Oh yes please!!!!
That's getting pretty close to Ultimate Spider-Man, isn't it?
Alfred and Thomas are going be in an on again off again love triangle with Martha Kane. The entire series is trying to make us believe that maybe Alfred is Bruce's biological father, right down to 9 months before the birth when Alfred, Thomas and Martha have a threesome.
So, a Xena clone?
Gabrielle was the Amazon Queen, not Xena.
Xena and Hercules were pretty campy and pretty much the only shows I can remember with that sort of setting/idea. There's plenty of room for differentiation there, especially if you want to make a more serious show.
Like I said, it's better if a prequel or spinoff doesn't feature the original version's characters and concepts all that often. That kind of defeats the purpose of a spinoff. The purpose is not to constantly and unimaginatively rehash what the parent show already did; the purpose is to take a character from the parent show that has potential on their own and spin them off into a new, separate setting where they can thrive in a way they couldn't within the confines of a supporting role on the parent show. The point is to find new kinds of stories to tell about them. If all you want to do is repeat the same kind of stories that have already been done, there's no reason to spin the character off in the first place. This is why Gomer Pyle left small-town America for a Marine Corps base. This is why the Jeffersons moved on up to a dee-luxe apartment in the sky instead of staying next door to Archie Bunker. This is why Angel stopped creepily hanging around a bunch of high schoolers and opened a detective agency fighting corporate demons in LA.
And if the next question is "Why not just create a new character if you're not going to reuse familiar elements from the source," then I suggest you ask the producers of FOX's 2010 Human Target. That Mark Valley series was nominally based on the DC character, but had nothing in common with him beyond the series title and character name, even ditching the character's trademark MO of disguising himself as the people he was protecting. It's not about copying the source; it's about using the source as a starting point for creating something of your own. Now, personally I couldn't get more than five minutes into the Valley Target and much preferred the more authentic '90s version with Rick Springfield, but that version lasted 7 episodes and the Valley Human (Standing Next to the) Target lasted two seasons, so you never know.
But like your Lou Grant example those were all preexisting characters, who were already popular, and who was played by a popular actor, so this is not the same thing.
I'm pretty sure they've said this is it's own thing, totally disconnected from Gotham and every other version of Alfred we've seen before.
I don't think he meant that this is a prequel to Gotham, because pretty much every other article I have seen since this was first announced said it was not a prequel to Gotham, that it was it's own totally separate thing.
Ras Al Gul is immortal-ish.
Whichever actor they reuse, will acertain the timeline in play.
I think if a spin-off becomes too divorced from its source material you run the risk of alienating the audience and losing their interest. Caprica and Stargate Universe come to mind which were interesting shows that I think may have been hurt by expectations. I think it can cut both ways, people interested in Battlestar Galactica and Stargate SG-U found them too far from what they liked and people who didn't care for the source shows probably weren't interested in exploring the spin-offs thinking it will be more of the same.
There might be a good series that could be made about the Picard family's struggles to run a vineyard but it might be better to just create a completely unconnected story at that point.
I think as an author that perhaps @Christopher has the perspective that the creative spark or inspiration is the only point of a spin-off but I feel that enticing and interesting an existing audience is also the point and shouldn't be entirely discounted from evaluation.
All TV shows are risks, from being too different to being too much the same. But there have been many prominent examples of successful spin-offs that carried little to no connection to the source shows (or in the case of Trapper John, legally the film that the show was based on), some already mentioned, including:
Trapper John, M.D.
Laverne & Shirley
Mork & Mindy
As for Pennyworth, I can't say that I'm interested. I was never dying to "learn" about Alfred's adventures in the pre-Bruce Wayne/pre-Batman era.
Separate names with a comma.