Spoilers DC's Legends of Tomorrow - Season 2
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Which is the embracement DC just made as they murdered and wound back the clock to 2011 on Superman.
I agree. Some of us still think it was a poor decision to bring Barry back in the first place.I imagine Wally West fans could've been thrilled.
I too was disappointed with the changing of Ro to Kira, ultimately it was the actress decision not to play the part that caused it. However in my imagination, Ro quit Starfleet and joins the Bajoran military. While serving on DS9 with Sisko, she has a spiritual awakening after a run in with the prophets. However with that said, I'm actually glad we got Kira instead of Ro. I liked it so much, I named my daughter Kira.
I get your point, I was just making a joke about Barry being your example.
I imagine Wally West fans could've been thrilled.
I actually think that Classic Wally works a lot better narratively in terms of a TV show/movie trilogy.
We don't need a million origin stories. We could have started the story already in progress, with Barry and Wally together. As Arrow has shown, the backstory could have been filled in later with Flashbacks.
I can't believe they had Rick Cosnett in studio and *didn't* cast him as Barry.... he is the spitting image of classic Barry, and had the relationship with Iris AND the police job.
I wonder what Gustin would have looked like with red hair? Seriously though, his whole "growing into the mantle" and being trained by Wells, and having all of those self doubts hanging over him, and all of that angst and the need for all of those speeches and pep talks..... it would have all made sense if this was a young Wally trying to live up to his predecessor's great sacrifice. For instance, at the end of Season 1, when Eddie dies to save the world, it could have been Cosnett as BARRY dying instead, propelling the Wally plot forward, with Gustin still starring on the show as The Flash the entire time (although starting as Kid Flash).... There are definitely parts of Wally's personality that would work well on the show. They could have still done the Shipp as Garrick storyline, allowing him to stay and mentor Wally/Gustin.
Alternatively Ro Laren could have joined Voyager with the Maquis crew if Forbes had wanted to continue working in Trek.
I disagree with Christopher on this. Yes, things worked out with Kira on DS9 but they could easily have also worked with Ro Laren. The stories would have been different but who's to say they would not have been better. Forbes, IMO, is a better actor than Visitor. The show instead would have been about Laren exploring her Bajoran roots, something they were already doing on TNG.
Also Paris was basically Locarno anyway--wasn't the name changed because the producers didn't want to pay royalties to the writer of the original episode in which he appeared?
I'm sure they would've done the best they could with whatever they ended up with. The point is that laypeople have this bizarre idea in their heads that it's somehow a failure or an anomaly if a creator's initial plans don't work out. It isn't. It's just an everyday part of the job, and a necessary part. Almost everything that ends up on the screen or the page is the result of a lot of revisions and changes from the initial plans. So it's pretty pointless to fixate on the first-draft ideas and wonder "what might have been." First drafts are nothing to be nostalgic about or to mythologize as somehow possibly being superior to what ended up onscreen. The problem with mythology is that, in the lack of actual information, it's easy to imagine things being perfect and wonderful and amazing. But in reality, if they had happened that way, they probably would've been no better than what we ended up with, and might well have been worse, because revisions and rethinkings are good. They are not some tragic setback that forces creators to settle for some inadequate substitute for their original plans. Oh, it would be wonderful if the first-draft idea were automatically the best, because then our lives would be so very, very much easier, but that's just not how it works. We rely on revisions and second thoughts to make our ideas as good as they can be. It doesn't matter whether a change is our own choice or forced on us by circumstance -- either way, it challenges us to try again and try harder, and that usually makes our work better.
I already said that was part of the reason. But as I also said, the producers of Voyager are on record as saying that the key difference they saw between Paris and Locarno -- the one insurmountable reason that they were not the same -- is that Locarno was unrepentant, that he was not basically a good person at heart. He was responsible for getting a friend killed, and he never stepped forward to take responsibility for it -- and worse, he bullied his teammates into not taking responsibility for it. He never redeemed himself, never admitted he was wrong, and that made him a bad guy. Tom Paris did come forward. He hid the truth at first, but finally he stepped up and admitted he was at fault for the fatal accident and he took his punishment, because he was basically a good person at heart.
It's the same thing I said before -- replacing a first draft with something else is not a bad thing. Sure, maybe they could've used LoCarno, but he would've had that taint of irredeemability about him, and it wouldn't have worked as well. After all, he was created to be the bad guy of "The First Duty." So he wouldn't work as well as a good guy in Voyager. So it was an improvement to go for a second draft, a version that was changed just enough to work better as a lead character.
I don't think your analogy of a first draft works in these cases. This is not a case of writing a draft and then improving upon it. The producers didn't just change something because it didn't work in the first place--they changed it because of circumstance. There's a huge difference, and good writers can make something work after it has been changed, but I disagree that it was an improvement. It was just different. Sure, the show runners came up with a logical reason for why changing the character was better but the redemption story would have worked just as well if it had been Locarno.
I remember back in college, a student production of the Pirates of Penzance was performed. The players spent months rehearsing and then during the performance week a bad bug made many members of the cast sick. The main lead and the understudy were both down for the count. So they brought in a guy from the chorus the play the lead, but he wasn't a tenor so he couldn't sing the group songs. At the beginning of the play he was presented with his Pirate manual (the text of the play). Another guy who could sing was brought on to play the janitor. He would just walk around stage with a mop until he took over for the lead in the songs. It was creative, funny, and a hit with the audience but it was a change made due to circumstance, not to improve the play.
I remember back in college, a student production of the Pirates of Penzance was performed. The players spent months rehearsing and then during the performance week a bad bug made many members of the cast sick. The main lead and the understudy were both down for the count. So they brought in a guy from the chorus the play the lead, but he wasn't a tenor so he couldn't sing the group songs. At the beginning of the play he was presented with his Pirate manual (the text of the play). Another guy who could sing was brought on to play the janitor. He would just walk around stage with a mop until he took over for the lead in the songs. It was creative, funny, and a hit with the audience but it was a change made due to circumstance, not to improve the play.
I thought Nick did take responsibility -- sole responsibility, in fact, so his teammates like Wesley got just a slap wrist and allowed to become officers.
Nick was arrogant, but surely this experience changed him.
As for my thoughts on the Vixen change... i think it's a shame than Megan couldn't continue...but at least it's for good reasons -- a chance to help her career...and the CW is not being retalitory...but rather supportive. And that's awesome...and keeps morale up all around.
My question is, though, did they need Vixen for her powers or personality? Her personality seems similar to White Canary (modern millenial woman), so that mgiht not have been bad... though they could have been BFF's.
It kinda reminds me of how JMS had to re-structure Babylon 5 to replace Sinclair with Sheridan.... it seemed to work out fine in that case. Hopefully it will here too.
Yup. While Wesley was obviously the hero of "The First Duty" since he forced the issue, Locarno took full responsibility and pleaded for the Academy to let the other 3 survivors of Nova Squadron stay in. From Memory Alpha:
"Locarno, who had always insisted that everything he did was for his friends and the team, took full responsibility for the accident and was subsequently expelled from the Academy. Locarno made a passionate plea to the inquiry board which saved the other members also from almost certain expulsion."
So yeah, he wasn't a good guy but I'd say the Voyager producers were wrong. The former villain and bully who's learned from his mistakes is one of the classic tropes of fiction. I mean Christ, Damar was created to be a petty thug and then became a murderer but by the end of DS9 he was absolutely one of the good guys. And along with Chakotay it would've been a good link back to TNG if they'd kept him as Locarno.
He was from the colony that the Federation left to the Cardassians when the borders were realigned. The border realignment was the principal reason for the formation of the Maquis.
And I have already said twice, that that doesn't matter. Having to make changes because of circumstances beyond our control is every bit as routine a part of a writer's job as making those changes by choice. It is wrong to think that's some horrible, sad anomaly and to be convinced that the original version must inevitably have been better than what we had to "settle for" instead. No. That's not how it works. As I've been saying, being challenged to look beyond your first ideas is good for the creative process. It's healthy. Yes, sometimes it's imposed on you by circumstances beyond your control, but you know what that's called? Life. If you're a professional doing a job, then you face obstacles and you work to overcome them, even to turn them to your advantage. That's what it takes to succeed in any profession. Some of the best ideas come from having to adapt to circumstances beyond your control. Like I said, it forces you to think harder and be more creative and come up with something even better.
But it sounds like it did improve the play anyway. You're mistaking intent for result. Any change, whether intended or accidental, can be an opportunity to improve the work. Creativity is largely about turning lemons into lemonade. That was one of the first lessons I learned when I was trying to become a writer -- how to use my creativity to turn a disadvantage into an advantage, a negative into a positive. I've always found that ability to be an invaluable tool. That's essentially what creativity is for -- finding solutions to problems. Setbacks and disruptions don't harm the creative process, they fuel it.
But not until after Wesley came forward first. If Wesley hadn't done so, LoCarno would've kept the secret indefinitely. Paris confessed his guilt of his own accord. He could've gotten away with it, but he chose to do the right thing rather than being forced into it. I think there's a pretty fundamental difference there. And it's a difference that the creators of the Paris character felt was important to the story they wanted to tell, so it was entirely their prerogative to make that choice.
Anyway, why does it matter? If the point you're making is that Paris is essentially the same character as LoCarno, then how would it have been a "better" story if it made no difference?
Oh, yes, that's a classic example of the point I'm making. JMS had planned to go ahead with Sinclair in the key role, but once circumstances forced him to change that plan, he realized he could do better -- that replacing Sinclair with a new character could help him fix problems with his original concept that he didn't even recognize until then. That's why setbacks are important. Our first ideas are never perfect. There are always flaws that we don't catch until we take another look at our ideas, or another or another. Being forced to take the structure apart and put it back together in a new way lets you spot flaws you didn't see before because you were too close to it, or weren't looking at it from the right perspective to see them.
Christopher, I'm not saying that what you are saying is essentially incorrect. The point is that change because of circumstance is hugely different than change because of artistic intent. The other point is that you can't say that DS9 and Voyager worked out better, because none of us know that. We never saw a product where Ro Laren was on DS9 or Locarno was on Voyager. You can say that they did a very good job (an excellent one in the case of DS9) making great shows, but we don't know if the end product was better than the original attempt.
Going back to Legends, I too think it is great that the producers are supporting the Vixen actress but I wonder why they are choosing to recast the role with an original television based one rather than mine the vast DC archive for alternatives.
Going back to Legends, I too think it is great that the producers are supporting the Vixen actress but I wonder why they are choosing to recast the role with an original television based one rather than mine the vast DC archive for alternatives.
It builds history, continuity, and legacy.... its a good move as long as they do it properly and don't ending up shafting Mari in the present.
Last edited:
And I don't agree that it is that different. The reason for the change is just the beginning of the process, the catalyst. That doesn't matter much to the result, which is the part that's actually important. Often, as with JMS and Babylon 5, being forced to make a change will enable you to recognize a better idea that you should have thought of on your own anyway.
It's the same with everything else in life. You don't always get to make the choices you want to make. A lot of the time, those choices are simply taken off the table by circumstances beyond your control -- and yet you often find that the consequences turn out better than you ever could've expected. The difference between the outcomes you planned for and the outcomes that life required of you is not that "huge" in the long run, because that difference is about the past, about what already happened, and that's beyond your ability to affect. What matters is what you do next. All creators have things we wanted to do but couldn't; as I keep trying to tell you, that's not an anomaly, but a normal part of the process. We don't cope with them by lamenting what might have been; we just stick them in a drawer and move on to new stuff, and maybe eventually we can find a new way to recycle some of those old ideas we didn't get to do before.
And yet you're trying to say that they would've worked out better without the changes. You can't know that either.
Similar threads
