TheRPGSite

Any opinions? Worth giving a look? I'm pretty hit or miss on the CW superhero shows.

Massive miss. It is very Feminist Agenda'd and I am pretty damn tired of the posturing and "Im better than any man!" screed these things love to push. The advertisements for it were like they wanted it to fail. Makes no sense.

Quote from: Omega;1109326Massive miss. It is very Feminist Agenda'd and I am pretty damn tired of the posturing and "Im better than any man!" screed these things love to push. The advertisements for it were like they wanted it to fail. Makes no sense.

The advertisements were over the top, but the show itself is far less so (and certainly less than Supergirl). I'm not certain how it will fare by the end of the season, but for now, it's as good as Arrow or Flash (take that as faint praise).

A soap opera with a very thin paint cover of superhero show, yeah thanks no thanks. Hard pass.

Can't spell cringeworthy without CW.

Saw the first episode. It's a dumpster fire.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1109472A soap opera with a very thin paint cover of superhero show, yeah thanks no thanks. Hard pass.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1109734Can't spell cringeworthy without CW.

Saw the first episode. It's a dumpster fire.

What put you off on the show?

Quote from: CarlD.;1109808What put you off on the show?

I think they just told you.  It is a trashy soap opera that disguised itself as a superhero show.  Also it is woke so it should go broke.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1109864I think they just told you.  It is a trashy soap opera that disguised itself as a superhero show.  Also it is woke so it should go broke.

 I was hoping to get some details beyond its a 'dumpster fire' and 'cringe worthy" and what was meant by too soap opera.

Quote from: CarlD.;1109908I was hoping to get some details beyond its a 'dumpster fire' and 'cringe worthy" and what was meant by too soap opera.

I'll again say that it is no worse (nor better really) than the other CW superhero shows like Arrow and Flash. I think it needs to build out the secondary characters quickly because the core character is, like always in these shows, one of the least interesting roles. If it's a soap opera, then that's a complaint that fits all of these shows. As far as cringe goes, I thought the clips shown for it were pretty over the top with the "I'm a woman! And a lesbian! (And...that's really all that's interesting about me)" along with gratuitous camera time on Ruby Rose's ass under an oversized cape. The show itself doesn't focus all that much on any of that, but it does tie an event related to her sexual orientation into her backstory, both in general and with a specific character. She also makes a few "I'm a woman!" quips, but they don't stand out all that much and the show seems far less woke to me than Supergirl. The scene where she wants the Batman suit made perfect "for a woman" is hilarious because the Batsuit already has tits on it. Apparently Bruce Wayne had a bout of gynecomastia.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1109918I'll again say that it is no worse (nor better really) than the other CW superhero shows like Arrow and Flash. I think it needs to build out the secondary characters quickly because the core character is, like always in these shows, one of the least interesting roles. If it's a soap opera, then that's a complaint that fits all of these shows. As far as cringe goes, I thought the clips shown for it were pretty over the top with the "I'm a woman! And a lesbian! (And...that's really all that's interesting about me)" along with gratuitous camera time on Ruby Rose's ass under an oversized cape. The show itself doesn't focus all that much on any of that, but it does tie an event related to her sexual orientation into her backstory, both in general and with a specific character. She also makes a few "I'm a woman!" quips, but they don't stand out all that much and the show seems far less woke to me than Supergirl. The scene where she wants the Batman suit made perfect "for a woman" is hilarious because the Batsuit already has tits on it. Apparently Bruce Wayne had a bout of gynecomastia.

Thanks. I liked the Flash and Arrow so I might check it out just to give it a chance. Honestly what I guess where the soap opera aspects appealed to me (they do with comics such Spiderman too) I can sort of feel you on "I am Woman, hear me roar!" type lines they can stick out like sore thumbs and feel forced (There's one in Dark Phoenix that really felt like it came out of nowhere. I chalked it up to Raven being pissed and really wanting to say something to hurt Charles who considered himself pretty egalitarian). I expected more of big time Women Rule vibe from Wonder Women: Bloodlines but was pleasantly surprised. There was some but a story focusing on female character and likely aimed at drawing in female audience its to be expected and it didn't beat you over the head with it.

And, yeah Batbboobs have been a thing for awhile. :D '

Quote from: Snowman0147;1109864It is a trashy soap opera that disguised itself as a superhero show.  Also it is woke so it should go broke.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1109918I'll again say that it is no worse (nor better really) than the other CW superhero shows like Arrow and Flash. I think it needs to build out the secondary characters quickly because the core character is, like always in these shows, one of the least interesting roles. If it's a soap opera, then that's a complaint that fits all of these shows.

OK, I watched the pilot last night. I agree that all of the recent DC television shows that I've seen (Arrow, Flash, Supergirl, Black Lightning) have been very pointedly soap opera. Batwoman strikes me as blandly fitting this mold. It seems significantly less political than Black Lightning or Supergirl, though Supergirl is more intentionally light-hearted and silly.

I was curious about Arrow years ago and watched a season or two, along with Supergirl - the others I only sampled. I mostly watched them out of curiosity more than finding them compelling. Black Lightning struck me as a dumpster fire, while Batwoman seemed more like a bland rehashing of Arrow.

Quote from: jhkim;1109967OK, I watched the pilot last night. I agree that all of the recent DC television shows that I've seen (Arrow, Flash, Supergirl, Black Lightning) have been very pointedly soap opera. Batwoman strikes me as blandly fitting this mold. It seems significantly less political than Black Lightning or Supergirl, though Supergirl is more intentionally light-hearted and silly.

I was curious about Arrow years ago and watched a season or two, along with Supergirl - the others I only sampled. I mostly watched them out of curiosity more than finding them compelling. Black Lightning struck me as a dumpster fire, while Batwoman seemed more like a bland rehashing of Arrow.

Thanks. I never felt the urge to really check out Black Lightning, sounds like my instincts were right there. What was up with it?

It seems like after the trailers got alot of backlash from fans of the characters they did apparently tone it down a bit.

I am still waiting to have a look at the Teen Titans series but the character designs for Raven and Starfire seem a bit... off... and Beast Boy not sure on. Looks good once it gets rolling from what little I've seen. But is it just me or do they transition events a little oddly?

Quote from: CarlD.;1110011Thanks. I never felt the urge to really check out Black Lightning, sounds like my instincts were right there. What was up with it?

It just seemed bad on many levels, I felt based on two episodes. Wooden dialog, bad production values, indifferent direction. I hesitate to comment on the acting given how bad the dialog was.

Batwoman at least makes an effort at visual style -- it plays up a bleak post-Batman Gotham, and pulls in a bunch of angles. The plot is bland melodramatic, but the dialog was at least better (on par with the other series, it seemed to me - which isn't great). The actors managed some good moments - Dougray Scott stood out to me, and I thought Ruby Rose was decent.

Quote from: CarlD.;1109908I was hoping to get some details beyond its a 'dumpster fire' and 'cringe worthy" and what was meant by too soap opera.

Days of our lives Vs Batman the Animated Series.

Quote from: jhkim;1110042It just seemed bad on many levels, I felt based on two episodes. Wooden dialog, bad production values, indifferent direction. I hesitate to comment on the acting given how bad the dialog was.

Batwoman at least makes an effort at visual style -- it plays up a bleak post-Batman Gotham, and pulls in a bunch of angles. The plot is bland melodramatic, but the dialog was at least better (on par with the other series, it seemed to me - which isn't great). The actors managed some good moments - Dougray Scott stood out to me, and I thought Ruby Rose was decent.

Ruby Rose CAN act, it's not her fault they give her shitty scripts. I was very much waiting for the show, and was talking against the SJWs going after her for "not being lesbian enough" and other BS. Had they opted to make a superhero show and gave her some good scripts I'm convinced she can pull it off.

As it stands it's a soap opera like the rest of the CW, no better and no worse, which isn't a compliment since all of the CW is shit.

Quote from: jhkim;1110042It just seemed bad on many levels, I felt based on two episodes. Wooden dialog, bad production values, indifferent direction. I hesitate to comment on the acting given how bad the dialog was.

Batwoman at least makes an effort at visual style -- it plays up a bleak post-Batman Gotham, and pulls in a bunch of angles. The plot is bland melodramatic, but the dialog was at least better (on par with the other series, it seemed to me - which isn't great). The actors managed some good moments - Dougray Scott stood out to me, and I thought Ruby Rose was decent.

Sounds look worthy at least. Its post Batman?

Seriously how hard is it to have a super hero fight crime and have to battle against a super villain to spice things up.  Adam West and the animated series had no issues with this so why can't CW grasp it?

Quote from: Snowman0147;1110088Seriously how hard is it to have a super hero fight crime and have to battle against a super villain to spice things up.  Adam West and the animated series had no issues with this so why can't CW grasp it?

They save that for the crossovers.

What I've gathered from other thread on the show was this 1st episode was mostly set up. background and establishing characters and relationships?

Quote from: CarlD.;1110144What I've gathered from other thread on the show was this 1st episode was mostly set up. background and establishing characters and relationships?

Pretty much, and that goes for episode 2 also.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1110155Pretty much, and that goes for episode 2 also.

Yeah, as I recall Arrow was something like that too.

Quote from: Omega;1109326Massive miss. It is very Feminist Agenda'd and I am pretty damn tired of the posturing and "Im better than any man!" screed these things love to push. The advertisements for it were like they wanted it to fail. Makes no sense.

I think if you go into a super hero movie and expect the hero to be less heroic than one of the supporting characters, you've completely missed the boat.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110395I think if you go into a super hero movie and expect the hero to be less heroic than one of the supporting characters, you've completely missed the boat.

Seems like they caught on after the debacle of the trailer and toned it down in the actual show.

But this is a recurring problem for DC adaptions. For some insane reason about every other adaption is handed off to someone who vocally despises the source. And not just DC. But they seem to do this more than Marvel or any other for a long long time. There also is this recurring trend of the new show going out of its way to offend the fans of the original. Very often deliberately.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110395I think if you go into a super hero movie and expect the hero to be less heroic than one of the supporting characters, you've completely missed the boat.

Could you explain/expand on this comment, please?

Quote from: CarlD.;1110502Could you explain/expand on this comment, please?

You really dont want him to answer that. Trust us. :rolleyes:

Quote from: CarlD.;1110502Could you explain/expand on this comment, please?

If you see a comic title of Batman versus Superman, who's going to win?  

The answer, of course, is whoever's comic it is.  If Superman is making a guest appearance in a Batman comic, than Batman is going to win.  If Batman is making a guest appearance in a Superman comic, Superman is going to win.  

The answer of 'who is the greatest superhero' is always 'whoever is on the title.  

If you watch a Catwoman show, Catwoman is going to be the most effective character, even if someone else who is nominally more powerful makes a guest appearance.  It's partly because the narrative is going to play to the protagonist's strengths - if Superman is there, there's going to be some information that you can't get by showing up and punching people in the face - so Catwoman is going to be able to use her manipulative abilities to 'win' when Superman couldn't.  

Outside of actual heroes, of course the main character is going to be 'better' than the supporting characters.  If the supporting characters were 'better', the show would be about them.  Sometimes Albert is going to get a chance to do something awesome and they're going to follow him with the camera, but when he's doing Master Wayne's laundry in the mansion they're going to follow Batman punching Joker in the face.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110566If you see a comic title of Batman versus Superman, who's going to win?  

The answer, of course, is whoever's comic it is.  If Superman is making a guest appearance in a Batman comic, than Batman is going to win.  If Batman is making a guest appearance in a Superman comic, Superman is going to win.  

The answer of 'who is the greatest superhero' is always 'whoever is on the title.  

If you watch a Catwoman show, Catwoman is going to be the most effective character, even if someone else who is nominally more powerful makes a guest appearance.  It's partly because the narrative is going to play to the protagonist's strengths - if Superman is there, there's going to be some information that you can't get by showing up and punching people in the face - so Catwoman is going to be able to use her manipulative abilities to 'win' when Superman couldn't.  

Outside of actual heroes, of course the main character is going to be 'better' than the supporting characters.  If the supporting characters were 'better', the show would be about them.  Sometimes Albert is going to get a chance to do something awesome and they're going to follow him with the camera, but when he's doing Master Wayne's laundry in the mansion they're going to follow Batman punching Joker in the face.

Well, there are exceptions, but generally that's accurate But as I understood the complaint it wasn't Batwoman's presentation it was some of the statement's she made "I am better than any man" and other claim in character or not that she "better than Batman (who actually is one of those characters that outdoes others in their own books..) and/or advertising/presentation that played those up. Which I can understand rubbing people the wrong way. If the ads (maybe the actual show?) for a Superboy program contained claims he was better than any woman, even Wonder Woman, there would be some negative feedback possibly worse if it was the advertising and presentation (women are presented as helpless damsels and such only).

I've read and seen plenty of stories where the main character admired, respected (even feared) so called outside characters as better, tougher, smarter, or just better than them. You see it towards Captain Marvel in the MCU films, for instance. But generally the title character does get the spotlight though that can maintain the sense of scaling. 'Mazing Man the TV show shouldn't)make him look more powerful than Superman though he is the hero because he's there, willing and heroic to do that job required not power boosted because he's name's on the show. The story is about him, but gratuitously worfing Supes would annoy me unless there was kind of plot/story driven reason for it; just don't have Supes show up. Best not to have Superman show or present a narrative that brings out his weaknesses and allow 'Mazing Man to shine and play a signifcant part.

Though perhaps I've misunderstood the complaints. From what I understand, she didn't do anything in the show so far to show she's "better than any man or even just Batman" (or likely more hand Bats/all men the idiot ball?) So it may just be poor commercials or at least ones that play to a very specific audience. It doesn't have to be because this character is a woman, but if the commercials where that blatant about it I'd say they sort of opened the door to it.

Again I don't watch CW much these day so honestly I didn't see them. And as I understand the show's setting was post Batman anyway so he wasn't in it for her to show up (For sound reasons, maybe he's getting old, shades of Batman Beyond* or handing any character with the wrong plumbing the idiot ball).

*Though I didn't feel Terry "out did" Bruce in that show, not precisely he served a role a mentor and adviser to a new rising hero taking on and continuing the legacy. I guess part of the reason there was less friction was they where both guys and no other issues of "culture war" were brought up and people seem much more touchy about the subject lately than back then.

Edit: In fairness, IME, Batman is one of the exceptions when it comes to showing up in the story and outdoing the central character. Sometimes its well presented, sometimes not.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110395I think if you go into a super hero movie and expect the hero to be less heroic than one of the supporting characters, you've completely missed the boat.

Nice strawman you got there, you sure you can beat it to death by yourself? You don't need help from your buddies?

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1110755Nice strawman you got there, you sure you can beat it to death by yourself? You don't need help from your buddies?

Speaking from an outside perspective, it seems like you both may be talking past each other to some degree.

[video=youtube_share;C35j5j4QFiE]https://youtu.be/C35j5j4QFiE[/youtube]

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1111198[video=youtube_share;C35j5j4QFiE]https://youtu.be/C35j5j4QFiE[/youtube]

Oookay...

If she was never popular in the comics nor in the cartoon, then what makes you think she would be popular in a live action tv show?  

Not to mention how about we make a actual character with some depth that just happens to be a lesbian instead of a shallow character whose only characteristic is being a lesbian.  It is not rocket science.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1111267If she was never popular in the comics nor in the cartoon, then what makes you think she would be popular in a live action tv show?  

Not to mention how about we make a actual character with some depth that just happens to be a lesbian instead of a shallow character whose only characteristic is being a lesbian.  It is not rocket science.

Well, that was more coherent than that video. I can't comment on the popularity of Batwoman in the comics and I'd have to get around to checking out the show before commenting on the character, but I'll keep your and others thoughts in mind.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1111267Not to mention how about we make a actual character with some depth that just happens to be a lesbian instead of a shallow character whose only characteristic is being a lesbian.  It is not rocket science.

It apparently works for porn.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111329It apparently works for porn.

I know your just joking, but seriously?  Is it just too damn much to ask for quality television?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111329It apparently works for porn.

If you're measuring character depth by how far a fist will go into orifices, then I guess porn has depth.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1111336I know your just joking, but seriously?  Is it just too damn much to ask for quality television?

Have you seen the show? Asking seriously.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111329It apparently works for porn.

Alot of adult and even very adult comics have more depth and characterization than these modern woke wagon shows.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1111198[video=youtube_share;C35j5j4QFiE]https://youtu.be/C35j5j4QFiE[/youtube]

I disagree with Rage here, sure, the character was made as a "diversity & Inclusion" purse puppy, but it was well written (at least until I started boycotting DC) and constantly outsold characters written as purse puppies.

Meaning in the comics she was a likable character, and well written. The TV show on the other hand?

Woke, meh, boring, and totally coincidental.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1110077Ruby Rose CAN act,

Says you.

That's all I got, unless you want my personal breakdown of her failures as an Actress, which I'll warn you is probably very very long, but not terribly deep or insightful.  The ONLY time I think I've been... impressed is probably too strong a word but work with me here... impressed with her acting was that one Resident Evil movie she was in, which entirely coincidentally (I'm not being sly there, I mean it...) her character died roughly ten minutes after being introduced.

Quote from: CarlD.;1111375Have you seen the show? Asking seriously.

Yes I have and it is garbage.  Also my previous response was towards deadDMwalking and not to you CarlD.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1111439Yes I have and it is garbage.  Also my previous response was towards deadDMwalking and not to you CarlD.

No problem, I was wondering as it seems to be one those things that's popular to make allot of detailed vehement (positive and negative claims without seeing it. Those generally need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Quote from: CarlD.;1111375Have you seen the show? Asking seriously.

Yeah, I've seen it and it's total garbage, possibly the worst piece of shit I've had the misfortune of viewing, bad on every conceivable level. Seriously.

How about you? You seen it?

Quote from: yancy;1111521How about you? You seen it?

Not yet, no. I've been looking around to get opinions and info on it. I do intend to check it out as what I've heard sounds interesting.Was there anything about it that stood out to you in particular?

Quote from: yancy;1111521Yeah, I've seen it and it's total garbage, possibly the worst piece of shit I've had the misfortune of viewing, bad on every conceivable level. Seriously.

How about you? You seen it?

Do you really think it's worse than Arrow, Flash, Supergirl, Black Lightning, or Losers of Tomorrow? I'm certainly not saying those shows are great (or even good), but I will say that Batwoman fits right in the middle of the CW pack.

Quote from: yancy;1111521Yeah, I've seen it and it's total garbage, possibly the worst piece of shit I've had the misfortune of viewing, bad on every conceivable level. Seriously.

How about you? You seen it?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1111554Do you really think it's worse than Arrow, Flash, Supergirl, Black Lightning, or Losers of Tomorrow? I'm certainly not saying those shows are great (or even good), but I will say that Batwoman fits right in the middle of the CW pack.

I would say that it's below average for the CW, but yes, the same kind of tired shit. A soap opera with a very thin coat of superhero.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111557I would say that it's below average for the CW, but yes, the same kind of tired shit. A soap opera with a very thin coat of superhero.

What would a weekly series that was superhero without soap opera elements even look like? Serious question, because fight scenes and special effects are going to get boring quick, and possibly too expensive if done right (or just a turn off if done cheaply). It's also hard to do continuing season-long storylines without looking like soap opera, and if you don't go with such storylines, many viewers will not get pulled in to watch 20+ self-contained episodes with limited character interaction and minimal growth.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1111559What would a weekly series that was superhero without soap opera elements even look like? Serious question, because fight scenes and special effects are going to get boring quick, and possibly too expensive if done right (or just a turn off if done cheaply). It's also hard to do continuing season-long storylines without looking like soap opera, and if you don't go with such storylines, many viewers will not get pulled in to watch 20+ self-contained episodes with limited character interaction and minimal growth.

Are you saying that the balance between soap opera and superhero is right in the CW?  Because I clearly said it's a soap opera with a very thin coat of superhero. Which isn't the same as saying there should be zero soap opera in the mix.

Edited to add:

I don't give a fuck how much it would cost to do the FX right or the costumes or the time to put them on, if you're going to do a superhero show, with established superhero characters then you have to do it right or don't do it.

Just look at the costumes of Teen Titans, cosplayers do it better. And if it takes one hour to put the costume on, I don't give a fuck, do it right or don't do it.

I'm a consumer, not gonna start making excuses for any multibillion corporation, if it's too expensive to do it right then don't do it, do a cartoon or a 3d animated series.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111564Are you saying that the balance between soap opera and superhero is right in the CW?  Because I clearly said it's a soap opera with a very thin coat of superhero. Which isn't the same as saying there should be zero soap opera in the mix.

Edited to add:

I don't give a fuck how much it would cost to do the FX right or the costumes or the time to put them on, if you're going to do a superhero show, with established superhero characters then you have to do it right or don't do it.

Just look at the costumes of Teen Titans, cosplayers do it better. And if it takes one hour to put the costume on, I don't give a fuck, do it right or don't do it.

I'm a consumer, not gonna start making excuses for any multibillion corporation, if it's too expensive to do it right then don't do it, do a cartoon or a 3d animated series.

I'm not saying they have the balance right. I'm sincerely asking for an example of what you would consider it being done right.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1111569I'm not saying they have the balance right. I'm sincerely asking for an example of what you would consider it being done right.

There's none that I know about. Not from Marvel, not from DC.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111571There's none that I know about. Not from Marvel, not from DC.

Well, what would be right in your opinion?

Quote from: CarlD.;1111572Well, what would be right in your opinion?

Costumes done right, characters done right, less soap opera more superhero, zero race/gender swapping. For starters.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111571There's none that I know about. Not from Marvel, not from DC.

In that case, is it possible that you have unrealistic expectations?

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111573Costumes done right, characters done right, less soap opera more superhero, zero race/gender swapping. For starters.

I'm still trying to understand what you mean by "less soap opera more superhero" when talking about these shows. What is it that makes them soap opera in your view, and is it something that has not also long appeared in the comics (e.g., I recall X-men comics being called superhero soap operas as far back as the mid-80s)?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1111581I'm still trying to understand what you mean by "less soap opera more superhero" when talking about these shows. What is it that makes them soap opera in your view, and is it something that has not also long appeared in the comics (e.g., I recall X-men comics being called superhero soap operas as far back as the mid-80s)?

I mean what I wrote.

I was around back then, and buying/collecting/reading comics since before that. Go read those comics, compare them to the shows and sincerely tell yourself they are just the same.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111585I mean what I wrote.

I was around back then, and buying/collecting/reading comics since before that. Go read those comics, compare them to the shows and sincerely tell yourself they are just the same.

Since you've said that no good examples exist on TV, let's talk about the comics you want emulated. Is there a certain title during a certain time period that best represents the feel you want to see on the small screen?

Quote from: Snowman0147Not to mention how about we make a actual character with some depth that just happens to be a lesbian instead of a shallow character whose only characteristic is being a lesbian. It is not rocket science.

I don't agree with this. Not that Kate is particularly deep -- but I thought the opposite. Her being a lesbian seemed like a tacked-on part to her. Her core story is her tragic past of losing her sister and mother, and her struggle living up to her father's expectations. Her relationships to her family (father, step-sister, and sister) were the most important - and none of them make any deal out of her being lesbian. I feel like she could easily have been a man and very little would have had to be rewritten.

Quote from: HappyDazeI'm not saying they have the balance right. I'm sincerely asking for an example of what you would consider it being done right.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111573There's none that I know about. Not from Marvel, not from DC.

Quote from: CarlD.Well, what would be right in your opinion?

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111573Costumes done right, characters done right, less soap opera more superhero, zero race/gender swapping. For starters.

Fair enough, but that doesn't give me a clear picture of what you're looking for. Also - I'm not familiar with the comic. Is there any race/gender swapping in the Batwoman series?

For me, I also don't know of a comic-book-based television that I particularly liked, except The Tick cartoon which was great for comedy. My favorite TV series in general is The Wire. Among the superhero series out there, the ones I enjoyed the most were probably Arrow, Jessica Jones, Supergirl, and Daredevil -- mostly based on the first season for each, since I haven't watched very far in for any of them. But all of them also had major flaws from my point of view.

Quote from: jhkim;1111588I don't agree with this. Not that Kate is particularly deep -- but I thought the opposite. Her being a lesbian seemed like a tacked-on part to her. Her core story is her tragic past of losing her sister and mother, and her struggle living up to her father's expectations. Her relationships to her family (father, step-sister, and sister) were the most important - and none of them make any deal out of her being lesbian. I feel like she could easily have been a man and very little would have had to be rewritten.





Fair enough, but that doesn't give me a clear picture of what you're looking for. Also - I'm not familiar with the comic. Is there any race/gender swapping in the Batwoman series?

For me, I also don't know of a comic-book-based television that I particularly liked, except The Tick cartoon which was great for comedy. My favorite TV series in general is The Wire. Among the superhero series out there, the ones I enjoyed the most were probably Arrow, Jessica Jones, Supergirl, and Daredevil -- mostly based on the first season for each, since I haven't watched very far in for any of them. But all of them also had major flaws from my point of view.

Did you read the whole exchange?

That part is answering as to what I want in a superhero series, not in the Batwoman series. So zero gender/race swapping in general.

But I heard somewhere that they were going to make Jim Gordon a black man? Not sure if for a movie or what.

I got all the Batwoman books since Kate took the mantle, well written comic, But they couldn't stay close to the original source, no, they had to go fuck it up. And don't get me started with her head being like a funko when in costume.

As  for the narrative that those evul istphobes fans review bombing the show because vagina/lesbian, let's not forget who it was against Ruby Rose doing the part and the fans (yes me included) argued against them.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3945[/ATTACH]

Boy those numbers!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3946[/ATTACH]

Quote from: HappyDaze;1111586Since you've said that no good examples exist on TV, let's talk about the comics you want emulated. Is there a certain title during a certain time period that best represents the feel you want to see on the small screen?

Sorry, I had missed your response.

Did you ever watch Batman Beyond? You can't tell me it had no character growth, so maybe something like that?

As for comics, it very much depends on the show, for Arrow: Longbow Hunters, Hard Traveling Heroes.

Titans: All the Marv Wolfman & George Perez run

Batwoman: The whole run up until  when I dropped all my DC books

Supergirl: I'm drawing a blank here, but maybe the Superwoman from TN52?

Flash: Geoff Johns and Mark Waid runs

Legends of Tomorrow: This is made whole cloth but the characters there are nothing like in the comics and the costumes are just fucking horrible.

Atom there was a mini where they brought him back after Sword of The Atom.

Hawk & Dove The Barbara & Karl Kesel's run.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111611Sorry, I had missed your response.

Did you ever watch Batman Beyond? You can't tell me it had no character growth, so maybe something like that?

As for comics, it very much depends on the show, for Arrow: Longbow Hunters, Hard Traveling Heroes.

Titans: All the Marv Wolfman & George Perez run

Batwoman: The whole run up until  when I dropped all my DC books

Supergirl: I'm drawing a blank here, but maybe the Superwoman from TN52?

Flash: Geoff Johns and Mark Waid runs

Legends of Tomorrow: This is made whole cloth but the characters there are nothing like in the comics and the costumes are just fucking horrible.

Atom there was a mini where they brought him back after Sword of The Atom.

Hawk & Dove The Barbara & Karl Kesel's run.

I'll admit I don't know particular artists/writers by name, but it gives me something I can search.

Re: Losers of Tomorrow (I swear that's what I think they should be called) most of them barely wear costumes, and those that do rapidly get worked off of the show. I think that this one is worse than the two episodes of Batwoman I've seen (take this as faint praise).

As for Hawk and Dove, I like the costumes on the current Titans series (even if they don't always wear them). That series actually has really fast transitions between storylines--almost like picking up a new issue with each episode. Not a perfect series, but I like it better than the CW stuff.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1111616I'll admit I don't know particular artists/writers by name, but it gives me something I can search.

Re: Losers of Tomorrow (I swear that's what I think they should be called) most of them barely wear costumes, and those that do rapidly get worked off of the show. I think that this one is worse than the two episodes of Batwoman I've seen (take this as faint praise).

As for Hawk and Dove, I like the costumes on the current Titans series (even if they don't always wear them). That series actually has really fast transitions between storylines--almost like picking up a new issue with each episode. Not a perfect series, but I like it better than the CW stuff.

Agreed on Losers of Tomorrow.

Yeah, Hawk and Dove's costumes are very close to the original, except that Hawk's looks like armor. I don't like that.

Quote from: jhkim;1111588I don't agree with this. Not that Kate is particularly deep -- but I thought the opposite. Her being a lesbian seemed like a tacked-on part to her. Her core story is her tragic past of losing her sister and mother, and her struggle living up to her father's expectations. Her relationships to her family (father, step-sister, and sister) were the most important - and none of them make any deal out of her being lesbian. I feel like she could easily have been a man and very little would have had to be rewritten.

I'll have to see the show before I offer my own view, but this matches up to what others I've talked about it have said. Some of them quite critical on it for this and others reasons, ironically.

QuoteFor me, I also don't know of a comic-book-based television that I particularly liked, except The Tick cartoon which was great for comedy. My favorite TV series in general is The Wire. Among the superhero series out there, the ones I enjoyed the most were probably Arrow, Jessica Jones, Supergirl, and Daredevil -- mostly based on the first season for each, since I haven't watched very far in for any of them. But all of them also had major flaws from my point of view.

I liked Arrow, loved The Flash, Daredevil, The Punisher and the first season of Jessica Jones. Luke Cage didn't grab me though its had moments. Personally, I like what I guess some call 'soap opera' (Yes, Geeky, you're the first person to use the term, take a moment to compose yourself or come up some 'clever' response). Its makes the characters seem more like real people that I can relate too and provides insight into their personalities outside of their secret IDs. The Peter Parker moments were some of the best parts of Spiderman: Far from home

Does Gotham counts as a superhero show? Superhero adjacent? :)

Edit: FWIW, I can't recommend the later seasons of Jessica Jones. It gets pretty heavy handed. YMMV.

Not trying to change the subject as this is all of CW's fault.  I hate what they done in Riverdale which is a complete violation of every thing Archie.  It just pisses me off to see something wholesome get dragged through the gutters to become more dark and gritty.  I mean what the fuck?

Quote from: Snowman0147;1111656Not trying to change the subject as this is all of CW's fault.  I hate what they done in Riverdale which is a complete violation of every thing Archie.  It just pisses me off to see something wholesome get dragged through the gutters to become more dark and gritty.  I mean what the fuck?

See also Nancy Drew.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1111664See also Nancy Drew.

I am afraid to ask, but what did they do to Nancy Drew?

Quote from: Snowman0147;1111703I am afraid to ask, but what did they do to Nancy Drew?

One of the first scenes is her fucking a guy in a mechanic's shop. You soon discover that she barely knows the guy. More worrisome is that she has a "nobody else can be trusted" loner vibe despite being surrounded by a circle of "friends" that seem willing to go way out of their way for her when she needs help with illegal activities. Also, everyone is dodgy with skeletons in their closet so maybe she is right to be distrusting. There seems to be a not-quite-out lesbian character in her circle that, of course, can't just be open and happy with herself because then her sexuality couldn't be played up for angst. Oh, and the show seems to be going less for solving mysteries than for having supernatural elements in it. All of this from the first two episodes.

Look, I get it - when you have a show that has characters that you like and the show developers take that character in a completely different direction for the sake of drama that's really annoying.  Gilmore Girl's Rory did exactly that.  But shows always do it for the same reason - creating tension and drama gives people a reason to tune in every week.  Bob Ross has a revival now, but that's streaming fare - people aren't going to be talking about what happened with at the water cooler at work.  

Every show is trying to enter the zeitgeist, so every show has to aim for 'if you miss this episode, you missed life'.  It's dumb, and any show that lasts long enough will turn dumb as a result.  The same thing happened with Burn Notice.  It can feel like a betrayal, but 'aggrieved fan' isn't a good look.  

Nobody on this thread better be telling me that they would have watched Nancy Drew every week if they played it straight - especially not on Prime Time TV.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111711Look, I get it - when you have a show that has characters that you like and the show developers take that character in a completely different direction for the sake of drama that's really annoying.  Gilmore Girl's Rory did exactly that.  But shows always do it for the same reason - creating tension and drama gives people a reason to tune in every week.  Bob Ross has a revival now, but that's streaming fare - people aren't going to be talking about what happened with at the water cooler at work.  

Every show is trying to enter the zeitgeist, so every show has to aim for 'if you miss this episode, you missed life'.  It's dumb, and any show that lasts long enough will turn dumb as a result.  The same thing happened with Burn Notice. It can feel like a betrayal, but 'aggrieved fan' isn't a good look.  

Nobody on this thread better be telling me that they would have watched Nancy Drew every week if they played it straight - especially not on Prime Time TV.

In other words :

Get hyped
Consume product
do not complain
Get hyped for the next shitty product
consume product

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111723In other words :

Get hyped
Consume product
do not complain
Get hyped for the next shitty product
consume product

No - you should tell people what you want and you should provide the step-by-step.  I've spilled some ink on what Star Wars Episode I, II, and III ought to have been and I'm happy to tell you about it.  But I definitely made the decision that I don't HAVE to see every Star Wars movie that comes out.  I'm disappointed with the sequels (VII, VIII), but probably not for the reasons you are (it has nothing to do with some people thinking Rey is a Mary-Sue) and I'll vote with my wallet.

But I also realize that I'm not owed anything.  It's not a personal betrayal when a company takes their IP and 'canonizes it' in a direction I don't agree with.  They can't MAKE me accept it.  For me, Indiana Jones ends with Last Crusade.  

Don't consume the products you don't like, but don't get mad about it.  Go support someone who does what you like, but just keep in mind that they can reboot or change direction.  

Entertainment properties are like people.  Enjoy the good times you had together, but when they turn toxic, don't keep them around because you used to love them.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111746No - you should tell people what you want and you should provide the step-by-step.  I've spilled some ink on what Star Wars Episode I, II, and III ought to have been and I'm happy to tell you about it.  But I definitely made the decision that I don't HAVE to see every Star Wars movie that comes out.  I'm disappointed with the sequels (VII, VIII), but probably not for the reasons you are (it has nothing to do with some people thinking Rey is a Mary-Sue) and I'll vote with my wallet.

But I also realize that I'm not owed anything.  It's not a personal betrayal when a company takes their IP and 'canonizes it' in a direction I don't agree with.  They can't MAKE me accept it.  For me, Indiana Jones ends with Last Crusade.  

Don't consume the products you don't like, but don't get mad about it.  Go support someone who does what you like, but just keep in mind that they can reboot or change direction.  

Entertainment properties are like people.  Enjoy the good times you had together, but when they turn toxic, don't keep them around because you used to love them.

Agreed, its the anger I don't get. You don't like something, you don't like but its not some personal attack on you by the company, they're not secretly paying off the people that did like it to act that way just to fuck with you. Tastes vary, don't consume media you don't like, if you have a venue make it clear what you would like. But ranting, even hurling insults and slurs really doesn't help matters any.
]
I can understand. I've felt that sense of betrayal in the past. But I realized its getting worked up for nothing and as I've gotten older that its really a waste of time and energy. I didn't like Rogue One and have no interest in Captain Marvel. Many others did, its doesn't threaten my sense of my own tastes and preferences. Entertainment is among the most subjective things out there.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111746No - you should tell people what you want and you should provide the step-by-step.  I've spilled some ink on what Star Wars Episode I, II, and III ought to have been and I'm happy to tell you about it.  But I definitely made the decision that I don't HAVE to see every Star Wars movie that comes out.  I'm disappointed with the sequels (VII, VIII), but probably not for the reasons you are (it has nothing to do with some people thinking Rey is a Mary-Sue) and I'll vote with my wallet.

But I also realize that I'm not owed anything.  It's not a personal betrayal when a company takes their IP and 'canonizes it' in a direction I don't agree with.  They can't MAKE me accept it.  For me, Indiana Jones ends with Last Crusade.  

Don't consume the products you don't like, but don't get mad about it.  Go support someone who does what you like, but just keep in mind that they can reboot or change direction.  

Entertainment properties are like people.  Enjoy the good times you had together, but when they turn toxic, don't keep them around because you used to love them.

Well, I don't have to tell the producers how to do their job, especially since "I'm not owed anything".

Of course I'm not owed anything, it's just as true as that they aren't entitled to my money or to my silence if their products fail to meet my expectations.

Your error is to think I'm talking as a fan, I'm not, I'm talking as a consumer:

I buy product X, that was advertised as product X, but when I open the package it really is product Y.

Now, I can't go and demand my money back, neither with comics, movies or TV shows can I?

So, I paid for it and got a shit sandwich instead of the chicken sandwich I ordered and that was advertised.

If the advertisement said chicken sandwich, I was right to expect a chicken sandwich and not a shit sandwich.

Therefore my complaint, they advertised a chicken sandwich, I bought it and got a shit sandwich instead. This is called mouth-to-mouth publicity, the cheapest and most effective, but those who want to serve you a shit sandwich while charging you for a chicken one don't like this kind of advertisement.

Why? Because a satisfied client recommends you to 3 people, a dissatisfied one recommends against you to 10 people. This was before social media, now when I complain I have a reach of 1000 times the number of not shared followers my followers have.

I vote with my wallet, but if you sold me a chicken sandwich and served me a shit one I'm going to tell the world. And I'll get mad you did it.

I already dropped all my big 2 comics, and have been telling people to vote with their wallets. But you don't like me telling others what awful it was to order a chicken sandwich and get served a shit one.

Do you get it now? My money my choice, and my right to criticize shit can't be overturned (yet). So, if you don't like my opinions put me on ignore, but you'll never convince me to stop criticizing the shit and those who peddle it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111753I buy product X, that was advertised as product X, but when I open the package it really is product Y.

So the lesson here might be to beware of ladyboys.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1111772So the lesson here might be to beware of ladyboys.

Bwahahahahahahaha I see what you did there! :cool:

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111753Your error is to think I'm talking as a fan, I'm not, I'm talking as a consumer:

I buy product X, that was advertised as product X, but when I open the package it really is product Y.

I'm not sure which products you're talking about here. Certainly in the case of the Batwoman series, I think the advertising seemed to pretty well match what was in the series.

I'm not all that familiar with DC and Marvel comic advertising -- but my impression is that content today is not surprising to most customers. That doesn't necessarily mean they're satisfied, but rather they generally know what to expect, or they at least *should* know what to expect. (Personally, my superhero comic reading is pretty limited. I'll read Astro City, and only a few specific lines of DC or Marvel if they're recommended by friends.)

Quote from: jhkim;1111780I'm not sure which products you're talking about here. Certainly in the case of the Batwoman series, I think the advertising seemed to pretty well match what was in the series.

I'm not all that familiar with DC and Marvel comic advertising -- but my impression is that content today is not surprising to most customers. That doesn't necessarily mean they're satisfied, but rather they generally know what to expect, or they at least *should* know what to expect. (Personally, my superhero comic reading is pretty limited. I'll read Astro City, and only a few specific lines of DC or Marvel if they're recommended by friends.)

Was it  tho?

Was it advertised as a woke snorefest? The woke could be overlooked if it was interesting/fun and well written, it's not.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1111772So the lesson here might be to beware of ladyboys.

*ba-dum-tish*

Quote from: jhkim;1111780I'm not sure which products you're talking about here. Certainly in the case of the Batwoman series, I think the advertising seemed to pretty well match what was in the series.

I'm not all that familiar with DC and Marvel comic advertising -- but my impression is that content today is not surprising to most customers. That doesn't necessarily mean they're satisfied, but rather they generally know what to expect, or they at least *should* know what to expect. (Personally, my superhero comic reading is pretty limited. I'll read Astro City, and only a few specific lines of DC or Marvel if they're recommended by friends.)

The "superhero/comic book" umbrella is pretty damn broad too. Ask 10 different fans what it means, you'll likely get 15 different answers so if you have a very specific set of tastes and expectation there's a good chance, realistically that'll you'll be disappointed. It's not a plot or something to make "bad shows" on purpose you're just not part of the audience the writers aimed or intended their product for. Its that audience is too small, then the program won't do well no matter much I or anyone else might love it (I've lost track of how many shows I really liked the bit the big one), if it is wide then I'll last regardless of how I or any other few views may hate it.

The superhero show is, despite the current popularity indicated by films a pretty niche genre. With allot of variability among its consumers. Unfortunately, that aggravated by some meta issues like seemingly omni-present culture wars.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1111656Not trying to change the subject as this is all of CW's fault.  I hate what they done in Riverdale which is a complete violation of every thing Archie.  It just pisses me off to see something wholesome get dragged through the gutters to become more dark and gritty.  I mean what the fuck?

Feel the same about Riverdale. That and its "self aware" gag gets really old like instantly for me.
It seems more based on some of the modern spin offs that get rather ugly. Didnt IDW butcher the IP at one point?

Quote from: Omega;1111851Feel the same about Riverdale. That and its "self aware" gag gets really old like instantly for me.
It seems more based on some of the modern spin offs that get rather ugly. Didnt IDW butcher the IP at one point?

No idea.  I am just wondering why couldn't they just make a good wholesome Archie tv show.  At this time it might be legendary because it would be so different from the rest of the shows today.  A wholesome show featuring high school friends...  Gee I wonder if the world is ready for second coming of Happy Days?  I know I am.

Well saw first episode of Batwoman.

What a mess.
They really dont want anyone forgetting shes a lesbian do they? Why is she the standard cliche butch lesbian that could just about pass for a guy?

So lets get this straight. She hates Batman because... Batman failed to rescue them and her mother and sister died? How did Batman fail to rescue them? He left them. Oh and why did he leave them? Because... he thought he had saved them... no... really. Oh and Batman has apparently abandoned Gotham according to her?

And on and on and on. So much wasted potential. So much disrespect for the characters. But eh, its essentially a TV show and that really is par for the course.

Saw the 1st episode. Not bad, nothing that particularly wow'ed me but watchable and I enjoyed the time. Kate struck me as an interesting character. Her orientation was an aspect of her that wasn't smashed over your head but wasn't hidden or use for titillation value alone. I was interested in her motives and relationships between the characters. I liked her resentment of Batman and her affection for her cousin Bruce and how it resolved without Batman being an careless asshole for no apparent reason that day. Alice is a fair poor man's Joker, not as good as the Clown Prince, but who is?

I don't know if I'll go out my way to watch the series, but I might grab it on video.

One amusing things is that I've seen some share Omega's complaint that Kate is too Butch, others that she's too much of a Lipstick Lesbian. Tastes are always going to be all over the place

Quote from: CarlD.;1112034One amusing things is that I've seen some share Omega's complaint that Kate is too Butch, others that she's too much of a Lipstick Lesbian. Tastes are always going to be all over the place

Its not so much a complaint that she is butch. Its fairly common with lesbians I have known and other friends know. My irk is that it is rather cliche. Mind you she is ex military so it makes sense in context. But she nearly comes across as a trans rather than a lesbian at times.

I am curious how later episodes will go. But that first one was just not my thing. And first episide seen can have a big impact on liking or disliking a series. ST:TNG was very much that for me. Pickard in the early episodes and most of first season was mostly a turn-off for me. Whereas Voyager was the exact opposite. I liked the first season and some of the 2nd. But eventually came to very much dislike Janeway due to how they kept writing her so badly.

Quote from: Omega;1112064But she nearly comes across as a trans rather than a lesbian at times.

I don't think this could possibly be true.

Quote from: Omega;1112064Its not so much a complaint that she is butch. Its fairly common with lesbians I have known and other friends know. My irk is that it is rather cliche. Mind you she is ex military so it makes sense in context. But she nearly comes across as a trans rather than a lesbian at times.

She never struck me as trans, but eye of the Beholder (does bad things to you if you miss your save).

My only complaint about how she looks is the overdone chaotic mess of tattoos she has. That those are a feature of the actress rather than the character is not a plus.

Quote from: CarlD.;1112075She never struck me as trans, but eye of the Beholder (does bad things to you if you miss your save).

I've heard it remarked that she has been mistaken for Justin Beiber in the past.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1112081I've heard it remarked that she has been mistaken for Justin Beiber in the past.

Take a ll kinds, I mean I've seen that video game character Chun-li described as being too mannish.

Quote from: CarlD.;1112130Take a ll kinds, I mean I've seen that video game character Chun-li described as being too mannish.

Please don't take her being mistaken for Justin Beiber as a sign that people necessarily consider RR mannish; perhaps they see JB as looking rather feminine, but more likely it's a bit of both.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1112169Please don't take her being mistaken for Justin Beiber as a sign that people necessarily consider RR mannish; perhaps they see JB as looking rather feminine, but more likely it's a bit of both.

*laughs* No worries That is a possibility. It really doesn't matter, IMO. People's opinions on looks are going to vary a great deal. I guess it only really matters whether you think she looked right or wrong for the part and that's still pretty subjective.