Franchise Movie DOs and DON'Ts
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
While the writing and acting have a bit to be desired at times, Arrow isn't THAT bad.
I especially liked the twist at the end of Season 1 where:
Personally, I think Agents of SHIELD is better, but it's not terrible.
I especially liked the twist at the end of Season 1 where:
The Bad guy actually won and wrecked half the city while Season 2 involves the aftermath.
How many shows have the balls the have the villain actually win?
How many shows have the balls the have the villain actually win?
Personally, I think Agents of SHIELD is better, but it's not terrible.
Has Ollie stopped being an insufferably smug know-it-all who the show goes out of its way to demonstrate is never wrong or mistaken at any time ever (or indeed is the spoiler you mention a direst result of that)? Because that was why I stopped watching the first series. Kind of tempted by the second if its opening up to the likes of the Flash with legitimate super-powersDiablo1099 said:
Kinda, I don't think it was as bad as the first season as it has Ollie trying to patch up the issues with his family and his company from the fallout on top of the slums turning into The Narrows from Batman Begins.Pallindromemordnillap said:
So far, Cadmus and HIVE have been name dropped so yeah...
I'm not saying it's the best show in the world, but I could think of a far more that are much worse.
I'm just here to see some legit "Costumed Hero fighting Crime" action outside of cartoons.
Bobby, why do you dislike Arrow? No really, I want to know to the degree that I want you to use next week column to explain this.
Edit/Extra rant:
The thing with the first season is that it was originally only 12 episodes, and some of the first episodes was bad, so with some of the fillers. But, it has a good passing, the writers know how to us the cast (exept Laurel), it's never dull and for the most part avoid easy drama. How do this qualify as terrible?
Edit/Extra rant:
The thing with the first season is that it was originally only 12 episodes, and some of the first episodes was bad, so with some of the fillers. But, it has a good passing, the writers know how to us the cast (exept Laurel), it's never dull and for the most part avoid easy drama. How do this qualify as terrible?
I think it's worth revisiting that series. I really enjoyed it by the end of season one and Ollie's character had grown and developed quite nicely. I am excited to see what they do with season two. To be honest, I like Arrow more than Agents of SHIELD. They do have very different styles though.Pallindromemordnillap said:
He's still quite often an insufferable know-it-all, but the show switched up to show how he's wrong very often. It especially helps that the opponents he goes against get progressively tougher. Fighting random mooks is easy, world-renowned assassins are a much better foe.Pallindromemordnillap said:
I have to say, I find Arrow to be a pretty compelling tale. In fact, I'm enjoying it a lot more than I am Agents of Shield. That's not to say that Agents of Shield is somehow bad, but it's stuck in its first season screw-ups.
In Arrow, the main characters feel alive to me (with the exception or Laurel who really needs an episode so the audience can finally come to understand the driving motivations of the character, crappy though they may be). In the first season, I could feel the barely-repressed anger from his character. The same is true for the other characters now; the actors are expressing the characters well enough that I can buy into what's happening, even when it seems outlandish.
Agents of Shield doesn't pull this off well. With the exception of Coulson, Fitz, and Simmons who have managed to express their characters well. Ward just comes off as an empty shell of a character; defined as a badass because thats what the show keeps telling us he is. In the Well he finally gets a tiny piece of believable characterization with his past, but even then, it's just reinforcing the "Look at me, I'm a Badass" story. Skye's oh so secret plot is also cliche. Oh, what's this; she became a hacker to find out about her parents? AND they're somehow connected to Shield (probably murdered in some Shield operation which will come out in the climax of the first season). Skye's the character we're supposed to identify with in this story, but at this point I'm only able to view the story from the perspective of Fitz and Simmons. Then of course there's Melinda May - one of the best operatives in Shield history we've never heard of - who doesn't want to be involved in fighting despite being dragged in nearly every episode.
Again; Agents of Shield isn't bad. A lot of my complaints are more to do with it being the first season where the writers and the actors haven't found their formulas yet. Their ability to tie in with the movies is extremely well done as evidenced by the opening of The Well, and I'm sure the characters will grow on me, but they just haven't managed to sell me on it. I can only hope I'm wrong on the Skye back-story prediction and instead there's some kind of twist I don't see coming.
Until then, I'm gonna continue to enjoy the plot of Arrow where every episode I'm getting something I didn't see coming.
In Arrow, the main characters feel alive to me (with the exception or Laurel who really needs an episode so the audience can finally come to understand the driving motivations of the character, crappy though they may be). In the first season, I could feel the barely-repressed anger from his character. The same is true for the other characters now; the actors are expressing the characters well enough that I can buy into what's happening, even when it seems outlandish.
Agents of Shield doesn't pull this off well. With the exception of Coulson, Fitz, and Simmons who have managed to express their characters well. Ward just comes off as an empty shell of a character; defined as a badass because thats what the show keeps telling us he is. In the Well he finally gets a tiny piece of believable characterization with his past, but even then, it's just reinforcing the "Look at me, I'm a Badass" story. Skye's oh so secret plot is also cliche. Oh, what's this; she became a hacker to find out about her parents? AND they're somehow connected to Shield (probably murdered in some Shield operation which will come out in the climax of the first season). Skye's the character we're supposed to identify with in this story, but at this point I'm only able to view the story from the perspective of Fitz and Simmons. Then of course there's Melinda May - one of the best operatives in Shield history we've never heard of - who doesn't want to be involved in fighting despite being dragged in nearly every episode.
Again; Agents of Shield isn't bad. A lot of my complaints are more to do with it being the first season where the writers and the actors haven't found their formulas yet. Their ability to tie in with the movies is extremely well done as evidenced by the opening of The Well, and I'm sure the characters will grow on me, but they just haven't managed to sell me on it. I can only hope I'm wrong on the Skye back-story prediction and instead there's some kind of twist I don't see coming.
Until then, I'm gonna continue to enjoy the plot of Arrow where every episode I'm getting something I didn't see coming.
I second this. Sure, it's far from perfect, but it does a damn good job of expanding upon Green Arrow and creating its own take on his backstory and supporting characters - which, to he best of my knowledge, has never been done outside of the comics.Goliath100 said:
And the League of Shadows.Diablo1099 said:
Also, the side-story of what happened on the island is rather engaging.
Aye, The Writing isn't the best but it's enough to make you say "Huh...Didn't see that coming" every once in a while.An Ceannaire said:
One of the comments I read said this show is getting more Soap Opera-y, but hey, so is Wrestling.
Least you can actually get some decent scripted fights in Arrow
I too really like Arrow, more than AoS so far (though The Well was a pretty good episode). Sure, the show has it's weakspots, but the thing to keep in mind is that Arrow isn't about the comics Green Arrow - it's about Oliver Queen gradually growing into the role of GA
So what I took from this article is that DC has to get its act together to compete with Marvel's movies and TV; and Bob hates Arrow more than AoS. Doesn't every new sow have it's bumps in the road in their first season?
I watched Arrow for the 1st 1/2 of series one, but gave up on it. Sounds like I may have to give it another go. Regarding the column itself, Bob really has a problem of deciding if something will be crap or good before seeing it and sticking to it.Ronack said:
Well, I guess someone has to comment on the actual article. I got a lot of different messages in some of those movies.
Do: Try to outdo your competition
Don't screw with the character to do it.
I never got 9/11 imagery off Man of Steel. I go a vibe of people that felt a desperate need to outdo the Avengers in terms of spectacle while also trying to "de-comic book" it. By that I mean Buildings won't stay standing, fights won't be held in an unpopulated area found in midday, and we won't gloss over any killing needing to happen (ie: we point out Superman killing Zod as a hard choice, instead of glossing over how many chi'tauti got killed by that nuke.) I liked it, but I do see a superman fan being off put by something rather out of character (he would have steer the fight out of town)
Do do prequels
Don't try and fit everything in.
It's kind of expected that prequels are full of nods, in jokes and information, but too much fills up running time. Any element of Wolverine's past could have made a decent film. All of them from James Howlett to amnesiac Logan, a little much.
Do use lessor villains
Don't make them suck.
It's not that even a lame villain can't be made cool, but Hector Hamand really just being used as a powerful guy going "you never loved me" doesn't make for anything epic.
Do make a shared multimedia continuity
Don't retcon one.
A minor misstep aside with the Hulk's post credits bit not being used, Marvel planned the Avengers and created the works to make it work. DC is trying to pretend established works can be knitted together. The structure, the tones, the contracts, none of that's there.Making this work involved getting people on the same page, not retroactively trying to explain the League of Shadows in both the Nolan movies and on arrow. As it stands, Marvel did well with the movies, but expanding things is still a work in progress, and for now, the name dropping in SHIELD still feels less an organic extension than a way to justify the Marvel logo.
Do: Try to outdo your competition
Don't screw with the character to do it.
I never got 9/11 imagery off Man of Steel. I go a vibe of people that felt a desperate need to outdo the Avengers in terms of spectacle while also trying to "de-comic book" it. By that I mean Buildings won't stay standing, fights won't be held in an unpopulated area found in midday, and we won't gloss over any killing needing to happen (ie: we point out Superman killing Zod as a hard choice, instead of glossing over how many chi'tauti got killed by that nuke.) I liked it, but I do see a superman fan being off put by something rather out of character (he would have steer the fight out of town)
Do do prequels
Don't try and fit everything in.
It's kind of expected that prequels are full of nods, in jokes and information, but too much fills up running time. Any element of Wolverine's past could have made a decent film. All of them from James Howlett to amnesiac Logan, a little much.
Do use lessor villains
Don't make them suck.
It's not that even a lame villain can't be made cool, but Hector Hamand really just being used as a powerful guy going "you never loved me" doesn't make for anything epic.
Do make a shared multimedia continuity
Don't retcon one.
A minor misstep aside with the Hulk's post credits bit not being used, Marvel planned the Avengers and created the works to make it work. DC is trying to pretend established works can be knitted together. The structure, the tones, the contracts, none of that's there.Making this work involved getting people on the same page, not retroactively trying to explain the League of Shadows in both the Nolan movies and on arrow. As it stands, Marvel did well with the movies, but expanding things is still a work in progress, and for now, the name dropping in SHIELD still feels less an organic extension than a way to justify the Marvel logo.
I have yet to see it, but has it changed everything about the character from the comics? What mindset should I go in with, because I love Green Arrow, from what I hear, this dude kills a lot of people and is a bit of a dick. Any of that true?Without spoilers, how would you, or anyone else recommend the show to a fan of the comic character, but with an open mindRonack said:
As I always take adaptions with a grain of salt.I liked it, as a Supes fan.Redd the Sock said:
I thought he did try move the fight, bashing him a few times in a row in the air, but whilst he is a brawler, Zod is a trained military fighter who was able to keep more control of the battle to a point where he left Clark no choice but to end it, you could see Superman had not a lot of fight left in him, and if he didn't end it then, I think he would have lost.
I think that due to the event of the first film, the destruction and killing of opponents will be learned from in the next one I hope, where he does his best to control himself by limiting collateral damage and killing others, as it is wrong. But remember, Zod was a foe that promised he would kill everyone on the planet unless Clark killed him.
I think that due to the event of the first film, the destruction and killing of opponents will be learned from in the next one I hope, where he does his best to control himself by limiting collateral damage and killing others, as it is wrong. But remember, Zod was a foe that promised he would kill everyone on the planet unless Clark killed him.
I liked it myself, but as I said: comic book logic and rules would have had him figure out something else.chozo_hybrid said:I have yet to see it, but has it changed everything about the character from the comics? What mindset should I go in with, because I love Green Arrow, from what I hear, this dude kills a lot of people and is a bit of a dick. Any of that true?Without spoilers, how would you, or anyone else recommend the show to a fan of the comic character, but with an open mindRonack said:
I liked it, as a Supes fan.Redd the Sock said:I thought he did try move the fight, bashing him a few times in a row in the air, but whilst he is a brawler, Zod is a trained military fighter who was able to keep more control of the battle to a point where he left Clark no choice but to end it, you could see Superman had not a lot of fight left in him, and if he didn't end it then, I think he would have lost.
I think that due to the event of the first film, the destruction and killing of opponents will be learned from in the next one I hope, where he does his best to control himself by limiting collateral damage and killing others, as it is wrong. But remember, Zod was a foe that promised he would kill everyone on the planet unless Clark killed him.
Arrow takes fair liberties with the character. Yes, in the first season he's more than willing to kill (he's taking names off a list) and between PTSD and the belief it's his mission alone, he does act like a jerk a lot. Second season hashim trying the other way of avoid killing,and he seems to have moved back into having friends. If you could see the long term development potential in MoS, you can probably get through the rougher parts of Arrow.