millarworld.tv Comics Creators

DC Television Thread


#1784

Yeah pretty much… there was one or 2 chuckle-worthy jokes… Though I assume those should improve gradually.

But, it’s basically a powerless Supergirl, meaning forced, corny, cringy, all smiles and rainbows, and it’s zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

Honestly, the worst part is that it’s excessively derivative. Not a single original thing in there except for maybe the concept of the company, but unfortunatley that doesn’t work if you don’t take it seriously.


#1785

In this week’s Supergirl she lost her powers and she was all awesome and smiles and rainbows and awesome :slight_smile: :heart:


#1786

But was she awesome?


#1787

Todd, Supergirl is always awesome :relaxed:


#1788

I’ll have to start watching Supergirl.

Rainbows aside - sounds like we have a lot in common. :slight_smile:


#1789

Those were the only good things about it.
Like the Shazam reference, and Starro etc.

I mean, I don’t mind a lot of references if handled well, and the world was set up enough to make it work.
Unlike the CW shows.

Not saying Powerless is great, but it does feel DC unlike CW.


#1790

[quote=“Bernadette, post:1788, topic:686”]
Rainbows aside - sounds like we have a lot in common. :slight_smile:
[/quote]We’ve always suspected you were from another planet. :smirk:


#1791

With a heavy heart I must report I found Powerless … funny.

Thing is, it is not DC at all. Not one bit. It’s early-Seventies Marvel.

The lead is Millie the Model. Van Wayne is the Wingless Wizard, or any bigmouth egomaniac villain. All early Kirby/Ditko/Romita/Heck/ et alia.

It won’t last, of course. 6-8 episodes, whatever good will and freshness it has will wear off. It’s an anomaly. Enjoy while you can!


#1792

It’s surely generic fun.

I wouldn’t call it “unfunny”, or bad, just predictable and cliche.


#1793

Oh, so … “sitcom”. Sure, it was formulaic down to the beats. Sitcoms have a tight structure, all the way back to The Honeymooners (frickin’ genius) and rather nailed down by Hanna-Barbera in The Flintstones and The Jetsons. Why? More Flintstones because they were prime-time, the budgeting for animation was always high. Scripts that followed a pattern had standardization that cut production time. As always, as ever, we follow the money.
:money_with_wings:


#1794

Like I said before, here on in another thread, the original concept was probably smarter written.

The original trailer itself had better gags and jokes in any case.


#1795

Absolutely. I tried my hand at writing a Fawlty Towers story for one of the write offs (with, it must be said, mixed success). I watched an awful lot of that stuff and read scripts. It is all about structure. Those things are so perfectly crafted, they tick along like a Swiss watch. That stuff is far more difficult than it looks to write and pace properly.


#1796

Ever done any “sweetening”? I’ve spent time in a sound truck (the roach coach equivalent of an editing bay) and timed out the rise and fall of the laughter, the secondary late-response tee-hees, the rare cough and of course exiting applause. It’s about as spontaneous as kabuki.


#1797

I have directed comedies. I know the soul destroying angst of watching a line play badly because an audience feels too self-conscious to laugh unless other people are laughing. So I get where you’re coming from.

I also know the soul destroying angst of having to deal with actors, but that’s a completely different soul destroying angst and it would be best not to mix those two up. :wink:


#1798

#1799

I am trying to decide which is the most awful subplot:

M’gan Marzz
Guardian
Joe West and his love interest
Jim and Leigh
Bruce crushing on girls
Professor Stein loves his Daughter
Damien Dahrk (in general)
Riverdales, you know, teen angst stuff


#1800

I think there’s a big problem with modern character-driven, ensemble-cast, long-arc television, and it’s that there’s usually no reason for half the characters to be there. This wouldn’t be a problem if the writers just let them fade into the background and be “supporting”, but for whatever reason they feel they need to give them a running sub-plot.

James Olsen is the worst example, for me. I love the Supergirl version of the character, I love the actor (I don’t give a damn that he’s got the wrong colour eyes :wink: because he’s got charisma and nails the character) and his contribution to season 1 was great and an integral part of the story.

Then they came to season 2, and suddenly… he’s not essential the the story – and let’s keep in mind that this is supposed to be Supergirl’s story, so the only things you really need in it are those things that shine a light on her. So that’s not actually a problem if you just let James hang around in the background until he’s needed to interact with the story, but you get the feeling that the writers (and possibly Mehcad Brooks’ agent? I dunno how it works) sit round and go, “Mehcad’s only on screen for one scene and gets two lines in this ep, what we gonna do??? [flips through a stack of old comics] Guardian!!! Squeeee!”

And basically you get a character shoe-horned into a role that he doesn’t fit and the show doesn’t need, and it’s rubbish and there’s suddenly less Supergirl on screen.

See also Joe West.


#1801

I think Gordon and Bruce are the worst things about Gotham (now that Fish Mooney is gone). Joe West and his love life are too inconsequential to be the worst. Same with Stein and his daughter. The correct answer is Dahrk. Even after death he won’t go away.


#1802

Plus West still serves a purpose with a direct connection to Barry (and Flash from the very beginning was more of an ensemble anyway).


#1803

He’s macking.
And that’s alllrught.