"Krypton" coming to SyFy from David Goyer

Which is exactly my point. They never trusted in the concept of a Jim Gordon crime drama, so they never even tried to give it a chance. I already said that explicitly -- it's not that they tried it and then changed, it's that they never really did try it. Maybe that was the original proposal, but the executives had so little faith in it that they compromised it from the start, so that it was already this clumsy hybrid concept by the time its pilot was shot. Remember, the story of a show's creation doesn't begin with its premiere, it begins with its development and all the months or years of planning and revising that get done before a single frame is shot. So when I talk about the producers lacking faith in the original concept, I'm talking about the decisions that were made before production.

There's nothing wrong with doing a non-superhero show in a superhero world. Look at Jessica Jones, which is basically a private-eye show in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The most important thing is whether a show is good, period. Whether its characters are strong and its stories are smart and effective. And that doesn't require those characters to be the same ones we've seen a million times before. Supporting characters brought to the forefront can be engaging too, as long as they're interesting people in their own right and have good supporting casts. And there can be merit in doing a spinoff that's in a different format or genre than its original. Like Lou Grant, a drama spun off from a sitcom. It didn't need to constantly fall back on references to Mary Tyler Moore characters and storylines, because it created enough new ones to stand on its own.

Krypton, to get back on subject again, is an effort at a science fiction epic in a superhero universe. That's an idea that has potential, and I want to see the show embrace that potential rather than feeling it needs to constantly tie into familiar superhero tropes. It's not bad to do something different in a familiar universe. It's certainly worth trying.

 

Or maybe once they actually started shooting the show and they saw what was working and what wasn't it just evolved into what it has. It seems to me it was always too fanciful to be a truly "grounded" crime drama so maybe it was natural for it to become what it has which whether intentional or not I've come to think of as a reimagined Dick Tracy. The show has actually stuck pretty close to its anachronistic neo-noir mob boss setting that has been there since the beginning so maybe that was more of its true nature than being a grounded crime procedural.

 

But that's just what I mean. I'm talking about the initial, formative choices that were made in the development phase, the decisions that were made about what kind of show to make long before the pilot was shot. From our perspective, it was "always" too fanciful because they had already decided to make it fanciful.

When you say "the beginning," you're talking about the first episode. But that's not the beginning, any more than the waiter serving the first course of a meal is the beginning of the cooking process. It's the end result of the show's initial development, of the decisions that were made about what kind of show to make and what its focus would be.

 

It makes exactly zero sense to make a completely mundane show set in the DC comics universe, even with a cast of totally fascinating characters. If the producers wanted to do that, they could have proposed that in a neutral setting. Instead, they've paid a (substantial, I'm sure) licensing fee to Warner Brothers, invited extra oversight of their production, plus created expectations in the TV viewing public, to use elements of the DC universe. If the show will be set in the DC universe, let's see some evidence of that. Striking the right balance is the key to telling the stories you want to tell. This is true for both Gotham and for Krypton.

A proven, popular path is to do something similar to the Marvels comic book series. (Some of Kurt Busiek's excellent Astro City work has also done some of this, not surprisingly.) This focused on everyday people living in the Marvel universe, against the backdrop of superheroics happening around them. They live their lives as normally as they are able, and sometimes, show how capable "ordinary" humans are of extraordinary feats of heroism and compassion. Gotham could have chosen to do more of that with Jim Gordon, but chose to focus more on the crazies that the city would become known for. Likewise, Krypton can be a scifi soap opera, a science-fictional tale of a doomed world, or some of both of those things and more, set against the backdrop of the DC universe's amazing galactic tapestry. I know what I'd prefer.

Let me emphasize again -- TV (and movie) producers choose the settings for their stories for the types of stories they want to tell, and what they can afford. You don't pay the Tolkien estate $200 million to play in JRR's world, and then tell the story of a local hobbit constable who never leaves Bree. You don't pay Warner Brothers millions of dollars to set your series in Gotham City and never use any Batman-related characters. And you shouldn't pay WB even more millions of $$$ to set your series on Krypton before the birth of Kal-El and not use things from the Superman mythos, as well as the incredible variety of planets and cultures already established -- Oa and the Green Lantern Corps, Thanigar, maybe even New Genesis and Apokalips. Whatever is in your license and that makes for good storytelling. But don't let it overshadow your Kryptonian main cast that you want the audience to care about week to week.

Now, go... be awesome! With great power comes... Wait, wrong universe.

 

The neo-noir setting and all was definitely put in place before the first episode, it didn't just spring up unexpectedly while they were filming. According to you they changed the grounded "Jim Gordon crime drama" premise while during the development phase and even if true is that not soon enough to not be held against it?

 

I said I was done with the Gotham discussion because it's off-topic, but "a Jim Gordon crime drama" was never "on the table" at any point.

Gotham was created to be exactly what we've gotten for four seasons... James Gordon and Harvey Bullock investigating the murders of the Waynes and dealing with the rise of Batman's classic Rogues Gallery, and that premise is the entire reason FOX executives committed to it.

 

We've seen street-level, grounded Batman stories work in the Nolan films and in the comics that inspired them like Batman: Year One. We've seen an emphasis on the cops in Gotham work in Gotham Central. Looking at a superhero world from a more grounded point of view can work because it's a different take, and different isn't bad. Like I said, the Netflix Marvel shows are based on that idea. Arrow is based on that idea, relative to the other Arrowverse series. And similarly, Krypton is based on the idea of exploring the cosmic, science fictional elements of the DC universe, rather than being just another show about superpowered crimefighters.

This is what's cool about comics. They aren't one genre. They're a melange of every conceivable genre, and there's endless room for variation in what constitutes a comic-book show. We live in a world where Luke Cage shares a universe with Guardians of the Galaxy and Arrow shares a universe with Legends of Tomorrow. So it should be easy to see that there's no single formula for doing a comics-based show.

Striking the right balance is exactly what I'm talking about! I have no idea why you think it isn't. I have repeatedly invoked Smallville as a show that found a good balance, by including elements foreshadowing Superman's future but not overloading the show with them. It certainly would've been possible to judiciously fold in Batman elements in the same way. Telling the story of Oswald Cobblepot's rise paralleling Jim Gordon's was a good idea. I have no problem with that. Introducing Harvey Dent later on was a good idea, except that they forgot about him and he disappeared. But it was excessive to pile on the future Riddler and Catwoman and Ivy and so many others in the same season. It would've been better to fold in other Batman characters more gradually. And to focus, as the first season at least mostly did, on the Batman-universe characters that make sense in that time frame and setting, like Gordon, Bullock, Commissioner Loeb, Sarah Essen, Sal Maroni, Carmine Falcone, and the like. Those characters are every bit as much a part of the DC Universe as the Joker and Ra's al Ghul.

You're basically agreeing with what I've been saying all along. I don't know how you got the impression that I was saying something different.

Again, we agree. It's a matter of finding the right balance. It's a matter of having enough faith in the premise to let it breathe, to use the more familiar DC mythology elements to support it rather than smothering it.

What in the world makes you think that's what I was saying? I've said several times today that I'm talking about the initial development process that preceded filming. There are months, sometimes years of development of a show's concept before a single actor is hired, before a single set is built, before a single frame of film is exposed. They have to decide what kind of show they're going to make before they start making it. And it's that initial decision-making process that I'm talking about. How many times do I have to repeat that? (And what does "neo-noir" have to do with anything? I never even brought that up.)

It's not about when they did it, it's about whether it worked. My point is that it didn't work, because they didn't find the right balance.

 

In response to me saying:

You said:

You then responded:

So if that's the case why are you correcting what I meant about the beginning? Why not just say you don't like what they did with Gotham instead of trying to show that the series didn't have faith in its premise or whatever when it doesn't look like that premise was ever layed out?

 

Hey has anyone seen that show Krypton? Been looking for a thread about it, but haven't found one yet. I just got finished watching it and its interesting, but not sure if it has legs to keep it interesting. The whole social class thing and politics and that stuff is boring. If wasn't for Strange and his story about being from the future etc, I wouldn't of even watched this. Will check out the next episode but hope their is more to this story that just supermans grand pa fighting for his family name and if this is correct from this site, I'm not sure I'm in it for the long game
"The first five episodes set a leisurely pace, laying out a love triangle. Seg-El and Lyta-Zod (Georgina Campbell) are in love, but Nyssa (Wallis Day), the ruler’s daughter, picks Seg-El as her mate. Complicating matters, another man, Dev-Em (Aaron Pierre), is in love with Lyta. And Nyssa still carries the torch for her former love, a woman."

 

This is the Gotham thread, keep moving son.

It's funny, I didn't even really care about that but it seems that was a factor a lot of people appreciated. I'm kind of bummed he's more "Syfy's Flash Gordon" than he is pulp comic guy but oh well.

 

Never mind. Every time I try to clarify one small detail of my position, it degenerates into more and more nitpicking over the ramifications of individual word choices, and the overall point is lost amongst all the sidebars. And my real point, again, is about Krypton, which is the subject of the thread we're in. If you don't want to accept my view of Gotham as accurate, fine; just read it as a hypothetical model for how I don't want Krypton to do things.

Syfy's Flash Gordon actually turned out to be a really good show once it worked through its growing pains. That was another show that had a problem with balance -- it started out trying to be more of a Smallville-like Earthbound show, which was the wrong approach, but eventually it found the confidence to embrace the Mongo side more and more and abandoned the early stuff that got in the way. Unfortunately, it started out so weak that most of the audience had left by the time it got good. But it shows that a series -- or a character, or an actor -- can improve from a rough start.

Anyway, I don't see much similarity between Eric Johnson's Flash -- who was a charismatic, clean-cut young man to whom kindness and heroism came naturally -- and Shaun Sipos's Adam Strange, who seems to be more of a dissolute antihero type. Basically the only thing they have in common is being blond.

 

^ I guess I meant "typical modern schlub walking down the street" by "Syfy's Flash Gordon" which is why I was comparing it to comic book Adam Strange.

 

Well Adam was a "typical modern schlub" at one time. With a touch of Indiana Jones.

 

I admit to only having a cursory knowledge of Adam Strange. If we're talking about Gotham not having faith in its premise I just don't like having hoodies and baseball caps inserted into the world of Krypton (just my personal bias).

And that's even with the Tigers being my local team...

 

As I keep stressing, it's not about all-or-nothing, it's about finding the right balance of elements. There's some value in having a present-day human character in the show to give audiences someone they can connect with. Dedicated SF fans like me are drawn to the alien and exotic, but a lot of casual viewers need a more familiar viewpoint to relate to. So Adam's inclusion could work as long as it's judicious, as long as the show finds the right balance. It's just a matter of not overloading the show with too many future elements.

 

I had the opposite reaction to the Adam Strange stuff, right now it feels unnecessary. I was interested enough in the rest of the story that I didn't really need the Superman connection to pull me in.

 

Well...I think the nicest thing I can say about 'Krypton' is that it was better than 'Inhumans'.
Overall it was watchable, in a mediocre "it didn't quite put me to sleep" kind of way, but didn't exactly leave me eager to see where they're going next with it.

Lots of cliche and very derivative characters, sloppy storytelling, an unfocused plot and a protagonist with approximately zero agency in his own narrative. So much needless running around, so many clumsy exposition dumps. So few memorable performances and next to no chemistry.

It might actually have worked better if they had Adam Strange around as just a nameless mystery character, lending a suspiciously well timed hand from time to time, and held off on the big reveal until at least mid season 1, if not the finale. They could have gotten a lot of mileage out of all of that, but instead they opt to blurt it a out in one episode.

I consider this to be a red flag since it implies the creatives on this show have so little faith in their own material that they can't see an audience sitting through it without the explicit inclusion of Superman.

 

^^^
Sorry, but "Ming the corporate executive middle-manager" NEVER worked. That show sucked from day one, and I'm sure it's why SyFy changed it's approach to production and marketing afterwards.

 

As I said, it did start out very bad, and a lot of people understandably wrote it off as a result, but it did improve massively in the final 2/3 or so of the series -- once they stopped trying to keep it Earthbound and shifted the focus much more heavily (and eventually almost exclusively) to Mongo, and once they stopped trying to achieve a level of action and spectacle they couldn't afford and focused more on stories driven by characters and ideas (though they did get a higher FX/stunt budget later in the season). Of course, by then, it was too late to save it from cancellation.

The idea of Ming hiding his genocidal tyranny behind a polished, appealing facade was actually one of the show's better ideas. Dictators who are charming and charismatic tend to be better at fooling the people into supporting them than dictators who are obviously cackling monsters. And it made it quite chilling when Ming dropped the facade and showed his true malevolence. The complex relationship between Ming and Aura was the most fascinating thread in the show. I still think they could've cast a better actor in the role -- Tony Amendola would've been perfect -- but Ming was ultimately a pretty well-written and effective character.

 

As a casual superhero fan (watched most movies, some TV series and cartoons, read a lot of wikis, but few comics), I'd honestly never heard of Adam Strange before. So his inclusion fell kinda flat for me. And I'd actually call myself a dedicated SF fan, but I don't typically include the superhero genre in SF.

Skimming the thread, I'd agree with you that I could do without anyone ever showing anyone smoking on any show ever again, so that inclusion instantly put Strange on my bad side. They're going to have to do some serious work to prove to me he's a decent person.

Has the multi-faced mask of the Voice of Rao been seen in any media before? It seems kinda familiar, but I can't place it. (No, I'm not thinking of the Quintessons!)

Speaking of which, is there anything else they've alluded to so far that a casual fan wouldn't necessarily pick up on? Braniac and Zod I know, and I have heard of Kandor before, but any others?

And would it kill them to add some color or some lights?! Yeesh, I'm sick of the dark grays and blacks and poor lighting in far too many SF and superhero shows/movies. DC seems especially guilty of this recently.