• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Supergirl - Season 2

You keep assuming that there's some sort of caveat attached to Gotham's use of the Batman property that is conditional on the series being a "prequel", but there's not.

I'm not "assuming," I'm just offering what I think is a reasonable hypothesis. But of course hypotheses need to be tested against the evidence. If you're aware of hard evidence disproving the hypothesis, I wish you'd provide a link to it, rather than just making unsubstantiated assertions.
 
It was flat-out stated that FOX and Gotham have full, 100% unrestricted access to anything and everything related to Batman, which in and of itself is all the "hard evidence" needed when it comes to determining what Gotham can or can't do, and if Warner Bros. had any issues whatsoever in terms of Gotham "conflicting" with what they are doing in the DCEU, they wouldn't have agreed to license the property in the fashion that they did.
 
It was flat-out stated that FOX and Gotham have full, 100% unrestricted access to anything and everything related to Batman, which in and of itself is all the "hard evidence" needed when it comes to determining what Gotham can or can't do, and if Warner Bros. had any issues whatsoever in terms of Gotham "conflicting" with what they are doing in the DCEU, they wouldn't have agreed to license the property in the fashion that they did.

Hearsay is not evidence. You say it was flat-out stated -- where was it stated? By whom? Can you show me that statement? Cite your source. Give me documentation. That is how evidence works.
 
The daughter of an unnamed OLDER sister of Lex Luthor?

He seems like an only child, but smothered by an excess of sisters amounts to a similar series of emotional deficits, I suppose.
 
The odd thing about adapting Lena as a villain on the show is that there was already a villainous female Luthor in Supergirl days of yore:

The press release doesn't say she's a villain. It says she's trying to "re-brand" the Luthor "empire as a force for good" and that Kara "must determine if she is friend or foe." So she'll be an ambiguous figure at first, and I wouldn't be surprised if she turned out to be a good guy.
 
There is absolutely nothing stopping Gotham's writers from jumping ahead and making their Bruce Wayne Batman other than themselves. If they decided to go in that direction, they would be totally free to do so without any objections from anyone on the film side of Warner Bros./DC.
Citation needed. You keep making these statements alleging to know what the producers of the show are and are not allowed to do.
 
Hearsay is not evidence. You say it was flat-out stated -- where was it stated? By whom? Can you show me that statement? Cite your source. Give me documentation. That is how evidence works.

From Kevin Reilly back in January of 2014:
"We own all the rights. That's what we're licencing," he said. "They brought us the entire franchise for a very healthy licence fee. We're not negotiating this piece meal. We have all of the underlying Batman rights for the entire franchise for this series."

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/01/1...-and-will-have-a-christopher-nolan-esque-tone
 
^ The amount of villains that the Kara Zor-El Supergirl has that are exclusively her own can be counted on one hand.

She really is intrinsically tied to Superman, so what they ended up doing was to take characters from the "Super"-mythos that are more traditionally associated first and foremost with her cousin and repurpose them in a way that associated them specifically with her... and I don't see that as a bad thing or as her 'living in her cousin's shadow'.

What it means is that the comic SG was never developed well enough to have many memorable storylines or villains, hence using Superman's. So, one cannot honestly say that SG was established as her own character.

Now, when it comes to a general influence--approach--that's another matter. When interviewed about Supergirl, Berlanti said how much he was personally influenced by the approach to a superhero in the Donner Superman, and I found that was promising. In other words, he was talking about essence of how superheroes should be brought to film--that, and a few visual nods from Superman the Movie. I posted comparisons in the season one thread of that, but I wanted the series to use that general influence, while establish its own identity where villains and story were concerned. She should have been more of the larger than life anomaly taking her status seriously in a very ordinary world. Only a few episodes touched on that--usually with James driving that dialogue (that was fine for the James / Kara development) but that's not taking entire characters or stories from Superman, just an essence.

I wish the series would build on the greater, serious feeling an alien hero would generate in the world. Hell, even deep into the MCU with Civil War, those discussions and feelings are still an issue in that universe.
 
^Well logically and dramatically, that's really the only way the show can end...unless it gets cancelled first of course.
 
Final season of the Vietnam War era China Beach was set in the present (1987ish?) where the "war orphan love child" conceived during an earlier season is looking for her birthmommy... Which is when Robert Picardo was given permission to take his Toupee off.

Present day (chuckle) shots were framing sequences for most of the rest of the story played out as flash backs still set in the 1960s... Harrison Ford did an episode of the Indiana Jones Chronicles, narrating a flash back to his adventure as a spunky 20 something in the 1920s.

The universe do not mesh, but so the #### what. I want Michael Keaton back for a few episodes, but then Birdman was about him screaming that he's not Batman.

Wow.

The lounge singer in China Beach is the mum in Shamless.

I just got that.
 
While Gotham isn't likely to jump ahead and put Bruce in the Batsuit, the point of that statement from Reilly was that they're not prohibited from doing it were they so inclined, and that there's nothing associated with the Batman property that is 'off-limits' to them.

The very fact that Warner Bros/DC gave FOX/Gotham the deal that they did - no strings attached - says volumes about the outdatedness of the idea that "an embargo for one means an embargo for all", and pretty much cements the fact that, whatever the impetus behind Arrow being forbidden from using certain characters, particularly those associated with the Suicide Squad, was, it wasn't something that Warner Bros./DC imposed on their own arbitrarily.

Steering this back to Supergirl, there had been/still seems to be (in certain places, anyway) this perception that the series was restricted from actually showing Superman or from using his name, which Andrew Kreisberg (and others as well) flatly debunked, and which wasn't supported by the evidence anyway.

Going back to the topic of villains, I'd like to see them take inspiration directly from the Adventures of Supergirl tie-in comic and bring in the 3 major villains that were used there: Rampage, Vril Dox, and Sterling Gates' brand-new villain Facet.

I'm also wondering how long it'll be before we find out who's playing The Doctor, since she's supposed to debut, I believe, in Episode 3 (and I'm pretty sure they're now shooting Episode 2).
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top