Options
DCTV - General Discussion: Silver Screen VS Small Screen
CageNarleigh
Posts: 729
Now, I don't claim to be an expert of any sort on video based media. I'm not sure how many of us here are even in the feild and could bring that side of things into the conversation.
BUT, it seems to me that Marvel is doing things right. Or, at least, following the right formula. Epic movies that are (for the most part) blockbusters time and time again. They put out a TV series following their properties and it just so happens to tie into the movies. Regardless of your position on it's quality, good idea. Even if it DIDN'T tie into the movies, having the presence in both mediums of movie and TV sounds great.
DC, however, seems to be following the wrong format. Their TV shows (well, show singular with Arrow. But, speaking as someone who has seen the Flash pilot, I'm going with shows plural.) are incredible. I look forward to them with fervor.
Their movies however...look, I liked 'Man of Steel' well enough. But I judge a movie, end all be all, on whether or not I'll ACTIVELY seek to watch it again. Nolan's Batman Trilogy? The original Reeve Superman movie? Those I seek out to watch multiple times. And this is actively sitting down to watch it again. Green Lantern is a background movie, sometimes barely that. MOS falls somewhere in between for me.
'Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice' on it's face sounds like an epic movie, but ever since the announcement, every bit of news since just makes me cringe. For the sake of my well founded love of DC and it's characters, I hope against hopes that it's an epic movie that just surprises the hell out of us. But, forgive the wrong universe reference, my spidey sense is tingling with this movie and refuses to stop sounding the warning bells.
But DC is charging ahead with both movies AND TV shows. And based on all of the footage I've seen of the TV shows, DC seems to have it DOWN.
For the record, here are the shows:
Confirmed:
Arrow
The Flash
Gotham
Constantine
iZombie
Rumored:
Preacher
Hourman
Supergirl
Teen Titans
(SIDE NOTE: Has anyone heard anything new about Preacher or Hourman? Be it they were shot down or still in development or anything?)
Now, unlike BVS:DoJ, DC TV stuff has yet to stifle my excitement. Sure, Arrow borrows too heavily from the Batman side of things, but I don't care. I just love every bit of it. And I know I'm not the only one. So in addition to opening up the discussion about DC's approach to TV VS their approach to movies, I'd also like to offer a specific question.
WHY?
Why is it SO HARD to get a good, epic DC movie that blows people out of the water across the board (Marvel Style) when they prove they can kill it with TV?
Is it too many fingers in the pot with movies? Too much money at stake so everyone has to have a say? Like I said, I don't pretend to know how it works...but I just figured I'd ask.
BUT, it seems to me that Marvel is doing things right. Or, at least, following the right formula. Epic movies that are (for the most part) blockbusters time and time again. They put out a TV series following their properties and it just so happens to tie into the movies. Regardless of your position on it's quality, good idea. Even if it DIDN'T tie into the movies, having the presence in both mediums of movie and TV sounds great.
DC, however, seems to be following the wrong format. Their TV shows (well, show singular with Arrow. But, speaking as someone who has seen the Flash pilot, I'm going with shows plural.) are incredible. I look forward to them with fervor.
Their movies however...look, I liked 'Man of Steel' well enough. But I judge a movie, end all be all, on whether or not I'll ACTIVELY seek to watch it again. Nolan's Batman Trilogy? The original Reeve Superman movie? Those I seek out to watch multiple times. And this is actively sitting down to watch it again. Green Lantern is a background movie, sometimes barely that. MOS falls somewhere in between for me.
'Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice' on it's face sounds like an epic movie, but ever since the announcement, every bit of news since just makes me cringe. For the sake of my well founded love of DC and it's characters, I hope against hopes that it's an epic movie that just surprises the hell out of us. But, forgive the wrong universe reference, my spidey sense is tingling with this movie and refuses to stop sounding the warning bells.
But DC is charging ahead with both movies AND TV shows. And based on all of the footage I've seen of the TV shows, DC seems to have it DOWN.
For the record, here are the shows:
Confirmed:
Arrow
The Flash
Gotham
Constantine
iZombie
Rumored:
Preacher
Hourman
Supergirl
Teen Titans
(SIDE NOTE: Has anyone heard anything new about Preacher or Hourman? Be it they were shot down or still in development or anything?)
Now, unlike BVS:DoJ, DC TV stuff has yet to stifle my excitement. Sure, Arrow borrows too heavily from the Batman side of things, but I don't care. I just love every bit of it. And I know I'm not the only one. So in addition to opening up the discussion about DC's approach to TV VS their approach to movies, I'd also like to offer a specific question.
WHY?
Why is it SO HARD to get a good, epic DC movie that blows people out of the water across the board (Marvel Style) when they prove they can kill it with TV?
Is it too many fingers in the pot with movies? Too much money at stake so everyone has to have a say? Like I said, I don't pretend to know how it works...but I just figured I'd ask.
Comments
http://www.hallels.com/articles/5776/20140911/izombie-rumors-plot-latest-news-walking-dead.htm
http://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/work-on-amc-preacher-has-begun/
Warner Bros., for whatever reason, traditionally shies away from their comic book properties. Maybe it's the idea that they are "kid's stuff" or just the fact that their characters have a pretty awful track record at the box office.
The "kid's stuff" idea is an attitude that has had to change in light of the success that Marvel has had with their cinematic universe, but it is still evident with how "dark and serious" Warner Bros. is in their approach to these films.
And the track record? Listen, nobody likes to do things that they do badly. If you can't sing, you avoid it. You can't draw? You don't. Why? Embarrassment. Warner Bros. hates doing superhero films because, historically, other than Batman and a couple of Superman films... they do it badly. Even when the films make a ton of money, they get so bashed (and rightfully so a lot of the time) that planned sequels tend to get put on the backburner.
That Warner Bros. is making this Batman/Superman/really backdoored JLA film now is only because they *cannot* ignore the money that Marvel is raking in, over and over, with lesser known characters.
Yet, even as they move forward, Warner Bros. seems to constantly hedge their bets, gauging the reaction of folks before making firm plans for the future. And, anytime they can tone down the "comic book" aspects, they do, because they are still embarrassed. (While Marvel gives a machine gun to a talking raccoon in a movie with a dancing tree, and the world cheers.)
Now, as for the DC television shows? They have learned and learned well. They also started out embarrassed, but have gotten over it. Remember Smallville? The infamous "No flight, no tights" directive? But, as the series went on, when they did add in costumes of some sort (even the hoody type) and more public heroes, there was a buzz about those episodes, an excitement, and I wouldn't doubt an increase in viewership from inconsistent viewers. Maybe the second highest ratings for the series came when they brought in the Justice Society - IN FULL COSTUMES. Why? Because fans of the comics were excited. This was what they wanted to see. And, the last episode of the series garnered its ratings based, at least in part, on the idea of FINALLY seeing Superman, flying around, saving the world, and wearing the costume.
Then, along comes Arrow, and there is a little embarrassment at the outset... it isn't *really* a costume, just a hoody, and he's not called "The Green Arrow," just the "Vigilante" or the "Hood," and there were no super powers to be seen. I mean, the Royal Flush Gang was a bank robbing family in hockey masks for Pete's sake! But, quickly, they began to embrace the comic book aspects. By the end of the second season, he's got a mask, called "Arrow," the villains wear full costumes, there are costumed partners and sidekicks, and The Flash (red costume and all) gets spun off.
I think that the TV people "get" it now. We, as an audience, are willing to give them a lot of buys in these superhero projects. Masks and costumes? Sure. Super powers? Why not? And, if we, as an audience, are willing to suspend disbelief and let you use these toys, then why not use them? After all, the fans of the comics want to see something reasonably close to the characters they know and love, and you put out a quality product while embracing that, others will come. I know a 60 year old maintenance guy that hasn't read a comic since he was 8 years old, but he watches Arrow each week, and excitedly talks about it, and how his son got him hooked on it.
Marvel has fully embraced their product. The DC TV folks are doing that. If Warner Bros. could learn to love these characters, we'd see that in their projects. But, they don't. In spite of it all, they are still embarrassed.
And that is sad.
Do you think though that it AT ALL has to do with Warner having too many people involved? The only reason I hesitate to think of it as a valid theory is that, aren't the people behind the TV shows the same people behind the movies in terms of who profits?
It seems to me that, what saved Marvels properties was the creation of Marvel Studios. DC Entertainment is different from Marvel Studios though, definitely not the same thing. I wonder if Warner could stand to benefit if they just backed off?
And movie people look down on TV. Less now than in the past, but that attitude of superiority still exists.
http://comicbook.com/2014/09/16/dc-comics-lucifer-from-the-sandman-tv-series-in-the-works/
PLUS.
A tendency to waste money on special effects and big names (Mar-Lon Brando? Rus-El Crowe? Big wastes both.) and scrimp on scripts.
A good script can make a cheap movie shine. All the stars and SFX in the world can't wipe the stink off a bad script.
"See? We have SERIOUS ACTORS! This isn't just some comic book movie, it's a SERIOUS FILM!"
Are they really scrimping on scripts? I'm sure they’re paying good money to get the scripts they're getting. The problem is the type of script they’re looking for.
As for Big Names, they get them for the same reason any film gets them, to draw attention and publicity to the film. I do agree that they often waste Big Names in roles that don’t call for them, but these are far from the only films guilty of that.
So that's Constantine, Arrow, Flash, Gotham, iZombie, Supergirl, and Teen Titans - possibly even Hourman and if one of the characters on Gotham gets killed, will we get a Spectre show? DC is exploding on the small screen and Marvel is dominating the big screen. This is truly a new "Golden Age" for comic fans.
DC did blow people out of the water with Batman Begins and Dark Knight. And the third Nolan installment seemed to be wildly successful as well, even though I found it an odd, messy film. While DC doesn't seem to have the same cohesive vision as Marvel, they have very much proven that they can make a superb superhero movie. Just maybe not as often as Marvel does.