|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Nov 2, 2017 0:33:59 GMT -5
Part of the reason that I can't get into Arrow, I must admit, is because it's basically a stealth Batman series. I think it's absolutely asinine that DC mandates that Batman is "a movie character" when he would be much better served in a top-quality series, akin to what Marvel was able to do with Daredevil on Netflix.
It's kind of mystifying that DC wouldn't do a straight Batman series, seeing as how they have zero problems overexposing him in the comics and in merchandise. There are two Flash's, so they can't use that excuse. Furthermore the show would potentially have a smaller budget than The Flash and Supergirl giving that there would be little need for expensive special effects. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2017 1:57:55 GMT -5
I agree with you on Arrow being a stealth Batman and I don't understand why their isn't a Batman TV Series since Adam West's in the 1960's. I don't care for Gotham because it's just not my cup of tea. To me, with all of these shows on Cable TV, Nexflix, and so on - I just don't think that their isn't a demand for it. That's my guess and I've might be wrong on this.
For the record, I don't care for these shows anymore and I just find them not to my liking and pretty soon - I'm thinking of stop watching Supergirl and stay with Riverdale because I like the show dynamics and all. If they did a Batman Television Series that's straight, with a little camp, humor, and good drama and keeping in the line of Sherlock Holmes and Columbo - it's might work for todays TV.
Then, you might count me in as viewer of that show.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2017 10:26:32 GMT -5
Gotham is their stealth Batman series, and for me, it has been pretty terrible overall.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2017 16:40:22 GMT -5
We have Gotham.
Sometimes it’s the show we need. And at least it doesn’t have Olicity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2017 22:41:59 GMT -5
We have Gotham. Sometimes it’s the show we need. And at least it doesn’t have Olicity. No instead it has Batboy and plot holes so big you could drive the DCU through it and still have room to fit the MU too. -M |
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Nov 4, 2017 2:59:38 GMT -5
I believe there is thinking that Batman is just such an icon and when it comes to doing something live action, DC wants to utilize characters like Batman, Superman, and I guess Wonder Woman now for movies...because it's a more definitive experience.
Which, if that is the thinking I don't really get because in the early 90's the Adventures of Lois and Clark was around.
But really, do we need a live action Batman series right now?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2017 6:38:45 GMT -5
But really, do we need a live action Batman series right now? In my mind, I don't consider Gotham a Batman Show and I don't like it at all for numerous reasons alone. To me, the last Batman series was Adam West. That's was over 50 years ago and I feel it is the time is right for it to reach out to new fans. In speaking of Lois and Clark - The New Adventures of Superman that was in the 90's ... the last really true Superman (George Reeves) series was the Adventures of Superman in the 50's ... and that's kind of answer your question. The more I think about it and I felt that we need another Batman Series and it's the right time to do it. George Reeves 50's ... Dean Cain 90's ... that's 40 years apart. Adam West 66 ... Batman 2018 ... that's 52 years apart. Lynda Carter 70's ... with Gal Gadot's popularity ... we could see another show in the next 3-5 years? I'm just speculating and I can see another Batman Show in the near future and with the right people and good mix of characters - it's could work now. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Nov 7, 2017 9:49:39 GMT -5
I believe there is thinking that Batman is just such an icon and when it comes to doing something live action, DC wants to utilize characters like Batman, Superman, and I guess Wonder Woman now for movies...because it's a more definitive experience. Which, if that is the thinking I don't really get because in the early 90's the Adventures of Lois and Clark was around. But really, do we need a live action Batman series right now? Well, ideally I'd like to see DC do something with great underutilized characters like Dr. Fate or the Spectre or Captain Midnight, but that's not happening anytime soon. The films, for all their budget and hype, are almost always terrible at showcasing the supporting cast and little nuances that make a character like Batman so great. To the mainstream audience Batman is usually reduced to a shallow action hero in tights with two or three year gaps between appearances. I'd say that Batman done right in a series would trump Batman done right on film if only because of the serial nature of a series. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2017 10:59:20 GMT -5
I believe there is thinking that Batman is just such an icon and when it comes to doing something live action, DC wants to utilize characters like Batman, Superman, and I guess Wonder Woman now for movies...because it's a more definitive experience. Which, if that is the thinking I don't really get because in the early 90's the Adventures of Lois and Clark was around. But really, do we need a live action Batman series right now? Well, ideally I'd like to see DC do something with great underutilized characters like Dr. Fate or the Spectre or Captain Midnight, but that's not happening anytime soon. The films, for all their budget and hype, are almost always terrible at showcasing the supporting cast and little nuances that make a character like Batman so great. To the mainstream audience Batman is usually reduced to a shallow action hero in tights with two or three year gaps between appearances. I'd say that Batman done right in a series would trump Batman done right on film if only because of the serial nature of a series. There was a Spectre series in the works about 4-5 years ago, but it died in development hell. I think it was at SyFy. But you have to remember the goal for the parent companies is not what is better for the character but what is better for the revenue stream. TV shows are harder to produce revenue from because it is based on how much people will pay to advertise on the show and that depends on day and time slot as well as content. Sales to streaming services and sales of seasons on DVD help, but still don't generate as much revenue as movies. Then they have to hold their breath and hope the show makes it to enough episodes for syndication to get any additional revenue, whereas they can sell any movie's tv rights immediately and have another revenue source there. The big money used to come from how much someone will pay to use the characters for movies or TV (i..e pay for the option), but since production has gone in house at WB and Marvel, that option money isn't there so they have to save the big names for the big revenue generator, and that's movies. TV revenue is ancillary revenue meant to build an audience. The big characters used to be used to test the waters because they had name recognition, but in this era of super-hero pop culture, that's not necessary, and TV is not a testing ground for secondary characters or offshoots of the big names, not the big names themselves. Decisions about what to develop where are not creative decisions, they are business decisions pure and simple, and it makes better business sense to exploit Batman in film not television unless you are doing an offshoot like Gotham that exploits Batman's world/mythos without actually focusing on the big guy himself. The days of testing the waters with shows like Smallville featuring a big gun are over and will remain over until the super-hero bubble crashes, things lay fallow for a while and eventually someone starts to try again, but we're a long way off form that point yet. -M |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Nov 7, 2017 16:12:42 GMT -5
I believe there is thinking that Batman is just such an icon and when it comes to doing something live action, DC wants to utilize characters like Batman, Superman, and I guess Wonder Woman now for movies...because it's a more definitive experience. Which, if that is the thinking I don't really get because in the early 90's the Adventures of Lois and Clark was around. But really, do we need a live action Batman series right now? Not really. Despite some pointing out that there's a Flash TV series and a Flash in the DCEU movies, he's not one of the flagship characters like Batman, Superman or Wonder Woman, all occupying the top of the icon food chain, and are deservedly treated as something special. Further, the TV versions of characters are usually seen as inferior (see the underpowered, short Superman who makes occasional appearances on Supergirl), and to be frank, most of DC's TV productions are of such a poor quality that producers (such as like Greg Berlanti, for one example) should never be allowed to touch top shelf characters. Batman is fine being a movie-only character. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Nov 8, 2017 0:24:56 GMT -5
I can't really buy the idea that Batman or Superman should be considered "special" and above a live-action series. DC has plastered their images on everything from peanut butter to underwear over the years, and still do, so in the context of general public perception it doesn't work. I could understand this mindset when dealing with literary characters, but not comic book characters that have been exploited in mass media since day one.
I'm also surprised that anyone still holds that movies are still superior to series, at least in terms of "art," seeing as how the best writing and acting clearly takes place on Netflix, Starz, etc. I'm not saying that any superhero show has ever risen to the level of The Soprano's, Breaking Bad or The Wire, but the potential is there. I'd say that Daredevil and Jessica Jones were certainly moving in that direction.
Finally, while I don't disagree with anything MRP said, what clearer path to monetary gain (since we all agree that's the ultimate goal) than to greenlight a high-quality Batman series on top of the films? If DC got rid of Arrow and Legends (not saying they should) that alone would free up more than enough resources. Being precious with Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman, while at the same time wanting to make as much money as possible, ultimately doesn't make sense given the stated goals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2017 0:53:17 GMT -5
I can't really buy the idea that Batman or Superman should be considered "special" and above a live-action series. DC has plastered their images on everything from peanut butter to underwear over the years, and still do, so in the context of general public perception it doesn't work. I could understand this mindset when dealing with literary characters, but not comic book characters that have been exploited in mass media since day one. I'm also surprised that anyone still holds that movies are still superior to series, at least in terms of "art," seeing as how the best writing and acting clearly takes place on Netflix, Starz, etc. I'm not saying that any superhero show has ever risen to the level of The Soprano's, Breaking Bad or The Wire, but the potential is there. I'd say that Daredevil and Jessica Jones were certainly moving in that direction. Finally, while I don't disagree with anything MRP said, what clearer path to monetary gain (since we all agree that's the ultimate goal) than to greenlight a high-quality Batman series on top of the films? If DC got rid of Arrow and Legends (not saying they should) that alone would free up more than enough resources. Being precious with Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman, while at the same time wanting to make as much money as possible, ultimately doesn't make sense given the stated goals. Movies have greater return on investment than series do. Simple as that, so you use your bigger moneymakers on movies, not TV. Brand management is the buzzword the suits use to justify it. Art doesn't enter into the equation in the decision making process of the suits. What gets us the greatest return on investment and what are the opportunity costs if we use it in other media? How will those opportunity costs diminish return on investment? Will using them in other media create a net gain or loss on profitability and profit margins (not total revenue), and if not, can we justify those additional costs or profit reduction to shareholders vs. future potential earnings? How will that impact investors on the next film, advertisers in general, licensing and merchandising revenue streams, and public reception of future products? TV is used to grow the brand, movies are where the money is made. Some properties don't need brand growth unless you are using them to expand the brand without using the core character in it (i.e. Supergirl or Gotham) and those are slotted for the movies where the money is made. TV is used to grow the overall DC brand exposing additional characters to see what catches on and were future earnings are possible with those characters. Superman doesn't need the exposure of TV right now, Supergirl does. Batman doesn't need it either, but Gordon and the Rogues gallery can benefit from it, so you use the Supes and Bats brands there to expand the overall DC brand but keep Supes and Bats themselves (aside form cameos and mentions) for the big revenue generators. It's not just will a Batman TV series make us money, it's what will a Batman TV series cost us in other areas and is that loss worth what money the tv series would generate. Cost benefit analysis that takes into account opportunity costs and brand health not just short term dollars and cents, and since the public will not be privy to the thinking that goes into that analysis (unless some of it makes its way into a shareholder report that then gets leaked), we won;t know the specifics, but we can be pretty sure if they thought it would be more profitable to have TV serie sof those characters, they would and some network would pick them up no doubt. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Nov 8, 2017 3:51:59 GMT -5
I guess I find it interesting that within the context of a business that exists to make a profit, "brand management" comes close to being an artistic consideration, at least from a business model point of view. There do seem to be a lot of assumptions here though, given that a live-action Batman series hasn't been implemented. I get the feeling that one reason may be that it's considered to be a given that a Batman series would cost more than Supergirl or the Flash for one, which would tie back into Batman's status as the most important WB IP, because the powers that be can't conceive of doing anything less with the character.
|
|
