Back when Gotham was first greenlit 5 years ago, it was confirmed by FOX executives - as well as Bruno Heller and Danny Cannon - that WB and DC had granted them access and rights to the entire Batman property license, and nothing has changed.
News Next Arrowverse Crossover to Include Batwoman
- Thread starter Enterprise is Great
- Start date
Back when Gotham was first greenlit 5 years ago, it was confirmed by FOX executives - as well as Bruno Heller and Danny Cannon - that WB and DC had granted them access and rights to the entire Batman property license, and nothing has changed.
I mean source as in a clear statement that if they wanted to, they could have Batman in the series. "Entire Batman property license" is still not a confirmation, especially as Batman as not appeared in any TV production.
^ It ought to go without saying that having access to the entire Batman property license includes the character of Batman himself.
Last edited:
If Supergirl is the Superman in the Arrowverse could they not use a old Supergirl in this storyline. I don't know the comic so I don't know how important it is for one of these characters to be old.
Jason
I don't know if I would go there.
Someone else had a very good idea to give this the justice it deserves, and that would be to cut short all four shows next year and make this an epic miniseries rather than a 3 night thing.
By cutting the seasons, the actors are not increasing their workloads.
This way, the story is done right.
I would not use an older Supergirl in the role of Kal-L. For one, this older version wouldn't have any reverence. Kal-L is the Action #1 Superman--the first.
There's nothing like that. About the closest you could get to what Kal-L meant would be if we lived in a world where Christopher Reeve never got hurt, and was in shape enough to put on the cape, AND would be willing to do this, AND would have already made a crossover appearance.
If they are truly going to do this right, they should set it up right. More multiverse stories--at least on Flash and Supergirl.
Let's get to know other versions of our characters, including a REAL crossover with Flash90.
The biggest reason to do COIE is to reset things and move in a new direction, so before Crisis begins, all storylines must be resolved as if the shows were having series finales.
What makes Crisis important to me is what they are going to do when it's over.
Freshen up the shows. Maybe reboot some things. For me, and I know it will never happen, but the best thing they can do is follow up on that John Stewart reference and have Diggle emerge from this story as a fully trained Green Lantern.
Maybe shuffle some casts around to keep it fresh--especially if they end up on one Earth.
It could allow for recasting as well if needed. COIE is big--let the end results be big.
Not very. It;s more about him being from another Earth than being old.
First, you're reading too much into what was essentially a PR statement made to promote show back when it was starting and everyone was saying "Who wants to watch a Batman show without Batman?" Then a FOX executive made a brief statement that was meant to mean "No, no, look guys we can do lots of Batman related stuff, honest!"
Second, you're missing the order of decisions being made there.
They didn't go "We want everything Batman related!" and then when they got that licence decided to do Gotham.
They went "We want to do a cop show about a young Jim Gordon investigating the Wayne killings" and then WB said "well sure, you can pull from all the Batman stuff" knowing full well they're not gonna do a story about a 10-year-old Batman.
The order is important, no actual proper Batman was already inherent in the premise of the show, and that's the only reason why WB was fine with saying "sure, you can use everything else." You keep making it sound like Batman could have popped up at any point and nobody could have done anything about it but that's just not the case.
The thing is: If FOX does have the full TV license to Batman, like Sony did with Spiderman to Marvel Studios (IE They and Marvel came to an agreement that suited BOTH studios, but Sony still holds the character Film rights), it would mean WB/the CW CAN'T show 'Batman' on one of their TV shows WITHOUT FOX's okay.
They don't.
They Flash also did "Flashpoint" and other than the basic concept of Barry stopping his mother's murder and creating an alternate timeline, it had absolutely nothing to do with the comics event. No war between Atlantis and the Amazons, no Thomas Wayne Batman, ect.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they've already announced or at least very, very strongly hinted, that we will see Bruce in the full on Batman suit before the final season is over.
To me, that's where Gotham went wrong. Judging from the earliest reports, it was conceived as a crime drama about Jim Gordon cleaning up a corrupt city, but the creators or the network didn't have enough faith in that premise and felt it needed to have more Batman-related elements in it, so it became this schizoid mess of a show that was trying to be two or three things at once.
As I keep saying, that is not at all how it works. Marvel sold the movie rights to other studios decades ago when it was near bankruptcy. DC/Warner Bros. never did that. All the DC shows are produced by Warner Bros. Television. They sell the right to air those shows to TV networks, which are not the same thing as studios -- they're more like theater chains, the distributors of the product rather than the makers. They are investors and production partners with WBTV, but they do not own the rights to create their own productions using the characters, like Sony does with Spider-Man or 20th Century Fox does with the X-Men.
The relevant Marvel analogy here is not to the Spider-Man movies or the mutant-based TV shows like The Gifted and Legion. It's to the MCU TV shows. They're all produced by Marvel Studios, but they air on different networks/distributors -- Agents of SHIELD and Agent Carter on ABC, Daredevil and the rest on Netflix, Cloak and Dagger on Freeform, Runaways on Hulu. One owner, one maker, multiple distributors.
I remember the discussions here before that season premiered. A lot of people were assuming that "Flashpoint" would last the whole season or be a major arc, and I was saying that it was unlikely to be more than an episode or two, because once you strip away all the larger DC Universe stuff with Batman and the Atlantis-Amazon war and so forth, you've really only got the same old cliched "I tried to fix my past and created a dystopia and have to put things back" plot that multiple other shows have resolved within 1-2 episodes. And it turned out that, indeed, they did wrap it all up in one episode, although they then spent a whole season on the aftermath of it.
I'm not watching Batwoman to find out how Batman will be portrayed. Just had to get that off my chest. I've had enough Batman in media literally for years now.
Yeah, I suspect "Where's Batman?!?" won't be the central thrust of the show. At least, I really hope it won't, because, I KNOW where Batman went... He went to be in the movies.
The thing about Flashpoint that didn't make any sense was that Flash's mother's death was the result of time travel and changing history. The entire series is an altered timeline. So if anything, Flash saving his mom would only delay Barry's accident--it wouldn't create a bad world.
Yeah, I have a feeling whatever the arc will be, there will be a lot more to it than just looking for Batman.
What is it going to take for people to start believing that "film only" embargoes are a thing of the past?
