Andrew_A

So E2 Wells is Donald Trump.

No, he's Tony Stark, without Stark's charm.

SHIELD lost me by mangling and turning everyone against each other for a nonstop misery fest of betrayal and horror.  Supergirl at least looks happier.

SHIELD lost me by being boring in the first season. I think I got as far as episode 13 before I said, "It's called Agents of SHIELD, but I'm not seeing any." I liked what one vlogger called it: Interns of SHIELD.

Agents of SHIELD probably benefits from a number of related things: tie-ins with the (very successful) movies, the success of Agent Carter, being part of the MCU as a whole (which allows Daisy to be from the same orphanage as Matt Murdoch from Netflix's Daredevil, etc.), and improvements in writing and plotting. That last one might not have had a chance to boost the show's survivability if it weren't for some of those others, but it is definitely making a difference now.

 

Supergirl doesn't really have ties to anything it can benefit from other than the Superman brand in general. It will largely have to succeed on its own. The quality of the writing had better rise quickly.

Well the showrunners want to do a crossover with Arrow and the Flash, but the network isn't too keen on the idea. We'll see.

BTW, I just watched the latest episode (and Global sucks for online viewing. Thanks for wasting my time with constant crashes.). I liked it. It was way better than the leaked pilot. I found myself warming up to the various characters. Even Cat Grant and Henshaw weren't as annoying as before. The special effects were about what I'd expect from a TV show. The Flash and Heroes have better sfx, but I grew up watching Star Trek and Doctor Who (the original versions of both), so my expectations in that department aren't high.

The drop in viewership is hardly surprising. When the writing is as bad as this, a 30% drop is to be expected when you don't have The Big Bang Theory as the lead-in guaranteeing aritificially high numbers.

 

It continues to irritate me that she refers to herself as the world's second superhero. I really don't need the title sequence reminding me every week that I'm not watching a show that takes place in the DCU, but rather some wierd Elseworlds universe where a quarter decade after Superman began superheroing not a single other superhero appeared to join in the action.

 

The fight scenes are an odd mixture of high-speed impacts and hilariously embarrassingly bad wire work. And her flight poses need a lot of work. They should take some notes from how Nathan Petrelli flew. And don't get me started on some of the atriciously bad CGI used for characters like the DDT-eater (though the Reaver mouth was pretty well done, I guess).

 

And, right, tearing apart the tanker makes sense but only in a non-Superman universe. Massive objects can be lifted and moved and stopped and whatever, all without losing structural integrity, because otherwise Superman can't be a hero. Ever. If that tanker rips open when being slowly pulled away from port, then the airplane she saved would have been ripped apart when she grabbed its fuselage from underneath and tried to slow it down to a survivable impact speed. But the writers expect us viewers to be as dumb as they are and just look the other way in the name of superhero entertainment.

 

I still like Melissa Benoist. And I still like Mehcad Brooks. Everything else is so lame I won't be surprised to see another 30% drop off...

I haven't seen the episode, so I won't comment too much, but didn't Agents of SHIELD also experience a huge ratings drop? It's still around, so who knows?

Then again, this is CBS. I don't have a lot of faith in them.

Zoom sounds like he's voiced by actor Tony Todd.

Yeah, it's Todd. This is why Comics Alliance (I think?) was speculating that Zoom might be the Earth 2 Wally West.

He's young, so having a few not as serious relationships fits. Perhaps after a while, they'll find him someone that has a few of the better qualities of the girls that he's dated. I don't know enough about the comic version to know if there's a canonical candidate, though.

Also, remember that "Kendra" isn't staying. As soon as we figure out what her deal is, she's going to be shuffled off to Legends of Tomorrow.

Here are some more:

Thomas Wayne Jr. (not Owlman)

Orm Curry/Marius

Nubia

Anybody who wants to hang out at TV Tropes could probably find dozens more. The point is it's a kinda stupid trope. Although I am curious to see what the showrunners do with it.

BTW, Comics Alliance (I think) was speculating that Zoom might be the Wally West of Earth 2. That would take care of the whole "long lost brother is a villain" trope.

Kinda sorta.

I guess I just don't see the superhero-oriented dramatic potential in making Wally the previously-unknown brother of Iris as opposed to her previously-unmentioned cousin. Now, if she was a supervillain and Wally was a superhero, then I'd see the point of creating the stronger sibling bond. As it stands, I fail to see how the geneological choice here makes any interesting dramatic difference whatsoever.

 

Speaking of characters that aren't supervillains but maybe ought to be: am I the only one who now realizes that if Caitlin Snow is going to become Killer Frost that it most likely won't be our Caitlin Snow from Earth Prime, but a Caitlin Snow from one of the other 52 realities? Which means anyone sitting around waiting for Caitlin Prime to have some sort of tragic, emotionally wrought "moment" that leads her down the path towards supervillainy is probably going to be waiting forever.

Perhaps you were thinking of Malcolm Thawne?

Or were you thinking of Gabriel Summers.

Mary Batson?

That said, it's a long running trope of superhero comics and soap operas alike and I wish it would stop.

I'm not sure it matters how Wally is related to Iris except perhaps in the minds of soap opera fans.

Or comic book fans. Most superhero comics are like soap operas for males. If you don't believe me, look at Spider-Man's 40-something year history.

Batman's Rogue's gallery is a threat to him and interesting.  The Flash doesn't even have to stop reading a book to trash all of his enemies combined, combined, at the same time other than reverse flash which is... not a great name.

 

https://youtu.be/AFpv1wOwRnA

The Flash's Rogues are appealing, if you're twelve.* But honestly, I'd say the same about Batman or Spider-Man or Superman or any superhero created before the Bronze Age.

Some of the show's fun comes from seeing how they re-interpret these characters for a modern, more "sophisticated" audience. Besides, what godless heathen couldn't love...The Mirror Master!

*And what's wrong with liking the things you liked when you were twelve? The Iron Age could be fun at times, but nothing compares to the sheer joy of seeing a guy in red tights fighting a hyper-intelligent gorilla with psi powers.

Well, in the comics*, Thawne is Professor Zoom, then there's another Reverse Flash just named Zoom (Hunter Zolomon). So, the one with the funky no-face schtick could be Zolomon. "Wells" did seem to be projecting an evil vibe in Earth 2, though. My guess is that there will end up being two Reverse Flashes this season. "Wells" could be manipulating things from behind the scenes. He may lack his powers on E2 in the same way Garrick does on E1. It does make me curious to see where they're going with this.

 

 

 

 

 

*At least according to Wikipedia when I was looking up the difference after the first episode. I'm not too familiar with all of the Flash family and his rogue's gallery. I've mostly been exposed to the Flashes in team books.

I don't have a link, but I believe the showrunners said Zoom isn't Zolomon. Personally, I think Eddie survived S1, went nuts, gained speed powers and is posing as Zoom. I also think the Harrison Wells of Earth 2 is the Harrison Wells of Earth 2.

Of course, none of that means that he isn't a bad guy.

As an aside, i'm not a fan of the live-action adaptation actor for Wonder Woman. She's seriously lacking the bulk needed to portray someone highly brawny and athletic like Diana.

Impossible. Unless they're using steroids, women don't bulk up the way men do. In fact, unless they're using steroids men don't get as big as modern comic book superheroes, hence the padding and fake muscles.

BTW, could we stop with the comparisons between Wonder Woman and Xena? Wondy could kick Xena's @$$ and beat up Buffy Summers afterward.

I'd like to take the topic in a different direction, if I may, and ask your opinions on whether or not they got her right.

 

I'm speaking here of Wonder Woman, as she appears in the upcoming movie--

 

 

Apart from the complete lack of color, I don't have too much of problem with this conception of the character.  I do have a problem, however, with the sword she's carrying.

 

I'm afraid I don't understand her need for a sword--or a shield or spear, or any other weapons beyond her Amazonium bracelets and her Golden Lasso Of Truth.  Wonder Woman has been described in the comics as being "Beautiful As Aphrodite, Wise As Athena, Strong As Hercules, Swift As Mercury."  That means to me she's strong enough that anything that can be cut with a sword or punctured with a spear can be punched through or torn apart with her bare hands, and she's fast enough that anyone swinging a fist or a weapon at her can be dodged or blocked, and anything being shot at her can be dodged or deflected with her bracelets.

 

The only reason I can think of for her to possess any other weapons beyond the lasso, the bracelets is that the author somehow thinks it's cool or edgy--pardon the expression--for her to be able to inflict grievous bodily harm on people. (Which, I reiterate, she is more than capable of doing with her Herculean strength.) To my mind, Wonder Woman needs a sword and shield the same way Superman needs guns.  That is to say--Not At All.

 

That's my thought of the subject.  What's yours?

Also, it's not true to the character. Diana's defining characteristic is her near-pacifism. She should be carrying a sword as much as Spock should be just punching people or Frank Castle should be using paint ball guns. It's inappropriate.

Marvel has shown the deft ability to tell stories of different types and with a variety of tones, even within the broader scope of a single MCU. DC/WB has not. They seem to be pumping from a single dark, dystopian well. They seem to be capable of hitting only a single note, and it's been that way for over a decade. Sure, The Flash tv series is brighter and cheerier than Arrow or the film universes, but it is only a single light amidst the darkness, and it will have zero impact on the cinematic universe DC is trying to scrabble together.

 

I kind of feel that Marvel is the new Pixar, and that DC is struggling to establish a cinematic identity. The long-term future for DC does not look bright, neither literally nor metaphorically, at least not to me.

Supergirl? What about Legends of Tomorrow? Neither of those shows seem particularly gritty or grim. Also, I've heard that Arrow is going to lighten up next season.

Or not. I'm not really a fan of Arrow.

I like Man of Steel a lot personally.

This trailer looks really good, and I will be there on opening weekend.

 

I like the take on Lex.  I liked the little we saw on Wonder Woman.  I saw Zod's Body and kyptonite. I suspect Zod will be a lead in to Bizarro or Doomsday. I'm thinking the militia with the S patch is either something Lex setup, or a nightmare sequence from Bruce's POV. What looked like Dick's grave, and the robin suit with the note on it in the cave.

 

Of the "superhero fights superhero" movies I'm looking forward to this more than Civil War, as much as I love Cap.

I'm with you. I liked Man of Steel. Story notwithstanding. Im looking forward to this one, though I favor Marvel currently, Snyder is my favorite director when it comes to action and were he to be paired with a better writer with a greater eye toward adhering to source material where possible, then I think Justice League has the potential to be the best superhero series ever filmed. But unfortunately they paired him with Goyer

Oh my god! Two other people, besides me, who liked Man of Steel! Sometimes I think we're rarer than unicorns.   And I don't even like Snyder. (As a director. I'm sure he's a lovely human being.)

As for Lex's hair, I think it's supposed to be a wig.

Am I the only one who thinks Jesse Eisenberg looks like an evil Michael Cera?

Among other things, I would like to see more on the Blood, the Paek-Tu martial arts school and the various NPCs and PCs that populated the campaign. I'd also like to see more details on other worlds the team has visited, like the globular cluster mentioned in the campaign chronicles. I think one of Bolo's NPCs was a lady astronaut from there. More on the Governor too, and his scheme to hold back the advancement of technology. What happened after he was defeated?

 

Just publish the whole campaign in a multi-volume set.

Heh, we would if we could.

Kickstarter?

Yes.

I disagree.

As an addendum to this, Ross Waton has asked me to take the role of lead writer on this project.

Why are you trying to take my money?  

Also, I would add, that I find reality TV way sillier than anything Jack Kirby, Gardner Fox, or Otto Binder ever wrote.

Yeah everyone says that.  I wonder though, what a art good director and cinematographer could do with brighter colors.  Its not like movies aren't made with anything but dull muted tones.

I wasn't going to comment on this, but I have 30 minutes to spare.

I think the real problem is that since the 70s, comics fans have wanted to be seen as oh-so-very grown up. We can't stand the idea of people thinking that we like something "childish" and "silly" like superheroes. A lot of us, when we were younger, were looked down on and mocked for liking stories about people in tights fighting other people in tights. We prefer to move away from anything that smacks of "silly" or "juvenile".

Jump ahead several years and a lot of these same people are now working in Hollywood or running the Big Two comic publishers. They grew up with Miller, Moore, Morrison, Waid, Claremont, Byrne, etc. They remember how much they loved Dark Phoenix Saga and Dark Knight Returns, and Kingdom Come and so many others. They don't want to remember a time when the Avengers fought a Nazi whose ultimate weapon was really powerful glue. They want you to forget the time Superman had a super-monkey or Batman had a dog who wore a mask (to hide his secret identity).

So they make everything "serious" and "profound" and "deep". Muted colours enhance that. Bright, primary colours remind people that these characters, these ideas, came from somewhere silly. They'll say, "We're trying to appeal to a wider audience." They forget that comics sold better when things were "silly" and "ridiculous" and fun.

Keep in mind, I'm saying this as a huge fan of Watchmen, Kingdom Come, and Final Crisis.

But I'm also a fan of 60s Legion of Superheroes, All-Star Superman, Supreme (the Alan Moore version), Tom Strong, and the 60s Doom Patrol.

Exactly! Chefs don't use new ingredients when coming up with a dish, just combine them in new ways.

Couldn't have said it better. (Though I tried.)

Here's an article looking at the trailer. Her take is different from mine, but the author makes some very good points. I'm obviously not a woman, so she saw some things that I didn't

The only thing I disagree with, is her belief that the Flash is "dark and gritty". Maybe I missed something else, but I don't see it.

CinemaSins is like TV Tropes. I really dislike deconstructionism when it comes to my entertainment. It really robs the enjoyment out of the product. So I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. In fact, I would extend that "less" to "no."

Cinema Sins is fun when he's picking apart a bad movie, but when he starts going after the good movies, I think to myself, "Get a life!" (Not sure if I'm talking to him or to myself.) Oftentimes, he just gets nitpicky and annoying

Agree wholeheartedly with no. In fact, I had not heard of Cinema Sins until today. When I first found, TVTropes, I read a few pages and laughed. Then I realized I was starting to analyze what I was reading for enjoyment according to the pages I had read. Once I stopped reading TVTropes, I started enjoying fiction again. Others may read TVT and still enjoy their entertainment. Like Nolgroth, I don't want it deconstructed.

 

Moreover, for every trope there is a subversion. These subversions are also considered tropes by some. So you can't win. Everything is considered a trope, and thus all works are unoriginal and boring (according to some critics).

 

Tropes and cliches are in fiction because they work and let us know what to expect. Don't try to write to the trope. Don't try to write to avoid the trope. Just write the story the way you, the author, think it will work best. Consumers will decide if they like the way you handled it or not.

I'm different. I like to pick apart, analyze and examine fiction. I like to see what works, what doesn't, and figure out what it all really means. That doesn't rob me of my enjoyment. It enhances it. Because I have a greater appreciation of what I'm watching or reading. It also helps that I can't analyze fiction while I'm experiencing it.

As for my comment about cliches: There's nothing wrong with cliches (I prefer the term "tropes"), if you're using them properly. Hell, they work best if - as you said - if you use them unconsciously. The problem with the clip I just saw, is that the cliches/tropes are being used in place of any actual effort by the writers. Kara doesn't act like any women the writers might have met. She acts like "harried modern working woman #631". The DEO guy (Hank Henshaw) doesn't act like any government official from the real world, he acts like a long series of "in-over-his-head and barely competent characters from any number of action movies. That's what I object to. If I'm going to invest the time to look at a creative work, I want the creator to put some effort into it. If I can take a scene out of a TV show (or book, comic, or movie) and write everything that comes after it, then the writers, actors, producers, and directors aren't doing their jobs.

For contrast, look at Arrow. (Let me say up front that I do not like that show.) They also use a lot of cliched characters (at least in the first season). However, the creators of that show take them in new directions. They keep you guessing from one moment to the next. They surprise you and give you resolutions that you couldn't come up with just by reading TV Tropes.

Maybe the creators of Supergirl will do that and maybe they won't. Either way, I'll check out the first season. I'm going to give it a chance. That's the most they can expect from me.

EDIT: BTW, why is deconstructing fiction worse than looking at a still photo of a costume and judging a show based on that? I don't get it.