|
Post by dazz on Jan 19, 2019 18:22:38 GMT
I dunno with that I would say the characters are more realistic, grounded I think refers to being grounded in reality, it is more grounded than the original though.
But if you use your definition I think my point still stands in regards to the Arrowverse not being all that more grounded than the Adam West Batman show as those character do not act like normal people at all.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Jan 19, 2019 21:37:43 GMT
I dunno with that I would say the characters are more realistic, grounded I think refers to being grounded in reality, it is more grounded than the original though. But if you use your definition I think my point still stands in regards to the Arrowverse not being all that more grounded than the Adam West Batman show as those character do not act like normal people at all. I agree with GK's concept for what might considered "grounded" versus say, "slice of life." I mean, Nolan's Batman trilogy is generally described, in some variation of the phrase, to be a "grounded" take on Batman; in that it's supposed to be relatively more realistic. Not strictly 100% completely realistic, because then Bruce Wayne would not invariably become Batman and virtually none of the other circumstances within any of those stories would be remotely truly, but within the context and conceit that X, Y or conditions are immutably true, the grounded take how one might expect normal, (generally) human character to respond and and behave as a result. I think a considerable amount of fiction actually tends to fall under this premise, it just tends to stand out more when applied to something like science fiction, because the settings and circumstances are so foreign that the concept of "reality" doesn't seem like it has anything to do with the subject. And that can be fair point, to a certain degree, but like where you said: Not necessarily that unrealistic or "grounded" as you might think. We may not be anywhere near Cylon level of development in terms of AI, but the qualifier is really to say we're not there yet. It seems far fetched, because it's not part of our everyday lives, but consider how much the world has changed in just the last 20 years, let alone the last 100. Artificial intelligence, in what might describe in its infant stages, is already here and has begun taking root in our lives in the form of devices like Alexa. What might that be in the next 20 years or the next 100? Same thing with space battles; our expansion into space is arguably some of our slowest development, especially considering that we went to the moon decades ago and haven't been back since. But space travel isn't just going to be a possibility, or even an eventuality, it's invariably going to be a necessity for humanity to spread out into the stars before we run out of resources on Earth. And the even the feat itself isn't so far fetch, it just needs more interest to drive the innovation; and with the development, there's going to come space travel and settlements beyond earth; and if current human behavior is any indication, we'll probable take war with us. What might just as easily applied to say the Battlestar Galactica reboot is that it took a more pragmatic view of human development and beahvior; even to the point of perhaps being a little conservative in thinking what sufficiently developed humans could be capable of. And that's definitely something that came from show runner, Ron Moore, who had previously been a major creative force on Deep Space Nine and briefly served as a writer on Voyager. In fact, I've always thought BSG was Moore's revenge for not getting what he wanted on Voyage; which was the desire to see the characters struggle more sustain their way of life and maintain the ship, with it in constant state of needing repair and patch work of conflicting systems as they trade technologies and resources to keep going - which the other show runners on Voyager didn't want to do, but is effectively what he did with BS. Likewise, the space battles lack the fast and effortless looking style of Star Trek; and instead the majority of ships, besides the much smaller fighters, are slow and don't maneuver very quickly - again, just like with Star Trek. And it's probably fair to say that with certain technology that gets developed for space travel, that interpretation may very well be correct, in terms of maneuverability, but that doesn't make Star Trek wrong, since it arguably just means their ships are just that much more advance to allow for that level of technological ability. In truth, what's "real" or "grounded" is all in the eye of the beholder; and perhaps more often telling of the person telling the story than anything else; as it allows audiences to glimpse the world through the lens of the author or director's perspective of how they view the world and how they think the people would react to given scenarios. Some writers are better at this than others, capturing the essence of human behavior, no matter how outlandish the story; while others ignore basic common sense in order to get the result they want, because even if they fair to connect the dots effectively, they're determined to draw a straight line between those points no matter what stands in the way. Then there are those who couldn't have an original thought if their life depended on them; and they just follow the same tired format no matter how gimmicky, stereotypical or just plain absurd (I say this in part because someone is watching "Fuller House" right now; which, in my opinion, is an example of that last one and is the reason I put my earbuds in and turned on music to drown out the insipid dialog while I type this....
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jan 19, 2019 22:20:32 GMT
I was really just pointing out to Deb the show is grounded mostly by comparison to the previous series, because she said she was surprised to hear it described as such based on those series, but a lot from the old shows from what I recall, I wasn't a huge OG BSG fan, is still there, Cylons, space ships, space battles yadda yadda that is all still here.
Some elements to the show however are not that grounded especially as things go on imo, and I think going in with the wrong expectation can sour a persons take on a show if it doesn't live up to it, we have all seen that happen after all, especially on here with some of the comicbook shows, you know don't want a good show being ruined by improper expectations going in is all.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Jan 19, 2019 23:43:52 GMT
I was really just pointing out to Deb the show is grounded mostly by comparison to the previous series, because she said she was surprised to hear it described as such based on those series, but a lot from the old shows from what I recall, I wasn't a huge OG BSG fan, is still there, Cylons, space ships, space battles yadda yadda that is all still here. Some elements to the show however are not that grounded especially as things go on imo, and I think going in with the wrong expectation can sour a persons take on a show if it doesn't live up to it, we have all seen that happen after all, especially on here with some of the comicbook shows, you know don't want a good show being ruined by improper expectations going in is all. Yeah, it gets a bit weird....
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Jan 20, 2019 14:36:24 GMT
I'd say that in spite of it's campy trappings the Adam West Batman series is more grounded then the Arrowverse. Some people think grim and gritty makes you grounded and being campy means you can't be grounded.
They are wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2019 9:04:48 GMT
Bizarro should have shown up more than he did. Done, Im here. Now whadya want? As for the OP, I think we did see enough of Lex but a little more couldn't hurt. He was one of the best characters on the show. Tess Mercer, would like to have seen more of her too. Zod is one character I would like to have seen earlier as well, his season was the best of Smallville. Slade, Darkseid, Doomsday and Vandal are pitiful depictions. Especially Vandal but theyre all bad, Doomsday is the least bad imo
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 12:54:26 GMT
Thanks for letting me know General Kenobi and stargazer1682 . We have all the seasons of the new series in our complete 'Battlestar Galactica' Blu Ray box set and we are going to start watching them after we have finished watching the final season of 'Angel' along with the first season of 'Gotham' again and I will let you both know what I think about it. I am surprised to hear it is grounded in reality 'cause the old series didn't seem to be that way and do they recreate any of the episodes from the original series and use any of the characters or were they all completely new episodes? Oohh and do they have any of the characters from 'Galactica 1980' in it? Grounded is a relative term, I mean how grounded can a show about space battles, sentient robots amongst other things really be? it's grittier than the original that's for sure but then what isn't when you remake or reboot something from the 70's in later decades? it's like Arrow is a grittier comic book show than the Adam West Batman but is it really a more grounded show? sure Adam West kept shark repellent in his helicopter but Arrows Oliver learned fluent Russian and mandarin to the point of sounding like he was Chinese or Russian born in mere months, learned forgot then learned how to hack all over again without explanation is somehow the leader among leaders in the Arrowverse but cannot keep his own team from questioning ever order or choice he makes on a daily basis so which is more unrealistic really?
No. I was thinking he meant grounded like Christopher Nolan's 'Dark Knight Trilogy' was described as being grounded so they couldn't use any of the Batman villains with powers or were more eccentric like the Riddler and was wondering how that could possibly work with a show like 'Battlestar Galactica' which is a Sci Fi show and is far from being unrealistic but I get what you and General Kenobi mean now especially with the Adam West 'Batman' comparison. I am more of a fan of Horror, Supernatural, Fantasy and Science Fiction stories as you know and I like things that are unrealistic.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Jan 26, 2019 14:43:46 GMT
Well if you want something unrealistic but awesome...
|
|
|
Post by BexxyJ on Jan 27, 2019 12:47:20 GMT
You know who shouldn't have appeared Starzy? Felicity Smoak. We saw her on Smallville on Oliver's jet. She looked the same, she acted the same but she was using another name. No way she wasn't the inspiration for the character that came.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jan 27, 2019 15:43:33 GMT
I don't think a character in Smallville ever appeared who was as obnoxious, self important, self serving, egomaniacal, two faced and shit headed who you know wasn't constantly called out for such behaviour except Lana...oh fuck that's what they did they just recast Lana with a blonde white chick...wait wheres the social justice outrage over this white washing?
Felicity Smoak not only a bad character that ruins a show but also a symptom of Hollywood ok Vancouver racism, fuck I wish some of the Olicity nutters were on here just to see the response to this shit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2019 12:46:31 GMT
You know who shouldn't have appeared Starzy? Felicity Smoak. We saw her on Smallville on Oliver's jet. She looked the same, she acted the same but she was using another name. No way she wasn't the inspiration for the character that came. I don't think a character in Smallville ever appeared who was as obnoxious, self important, self serving, egomaniacal, two faced and shit headed who you know wasn't constantly called out for such behaviour except Lana...oh fuck that's what they did they just recast Lana with a blonde white chick...wait wheres the social justice outrage over this white washing? Felicity Smoak not only a bad character that ruins a show but also a symptom of Hollywood ok Vancouver racism, fuck I wish some of the Olicity nutters were on here just to see the response to this shit. I remember the character you are talking about and I can't recall her name 'cause she was only in 2 or 3 episodes and was more of a background character that had a couple of lines when Oliver needed assistance with something and I don't know if she was the inspiration for Felicity but Chloe Sullivan was and a lot of people were saying it from the first episode she appeared in. The difference with Chloe and Felicity though was what Dazz mentioned and Chloe was far more courageous than Felicity and she often spied on villains, went through their things when they weren't around and even took some of them on herself which lead to her getting captured and Clark having to rescue much like Lois did in 'Lois and Clark' but she had a lot more get up and go in her than Felicity and didn't spend all her time behind a computer. This show would have been better with Chloe than Felicity but then they would have had the sex cult problems with Allison. Although maybe she wouldn't have joined the sex cult then. It was only after her career died she did that.
|
|
|
Post by BexxyJ on Feb 19, 2019 14:43:27 GMT
I don't think a character in Smallville ever appeared who was as obnoxious, self important, self serving, egomaniacal, two faced and shit headed who you know wasn't constantly called out for such behaviour except Lana...oh fuck that's what they did they just recast Lana with a blonde white chick...wait wheres the social justice outrage over this white washing? Felicity Smoak not only a bad character that ruins a show but also a symptom of Hollywood ok Vancouver racism, fuck I wish some of the Olicity nutters were on here just to see the response to this shit. Felicity was like a virus that spread and created another bigger virus called Olicity. The show would be better if that bitch bit the bullet when they teased it in season 4 but they only teased it and killed Laurel instead. What were they thinking?
|
|
|
Post by BexxyJ on Feb 19, 2019 14:45:01 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 11:19:00 GMT
No. I don't think Felicity on 'Arrow' drove Allison Mack to join a sex cult after 'Smallville' and we don't even know if she watched 'Arrow' or not but I think watching all the other actresses she worked with like Kristin, Laura and Erica go on to have success with their own TV shows while she didn't really get anything after being in the show the longest amount of time out of all the female character might have lead to it. I don't know why Allison didn't get any major roles in TV shows after 'Smallville' ended and you would have thought she would have gone on to at least have a regular or re-occurring role in a TV show but it was kinda like she got shunned from the industry and Tom didn't go on to do much after 'Smallville' either but he chose to quit and has said in interviews he turned down leading roles in other TV shows 'cause he wanted to have a break from being famous.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Mar 19, 2019 18:08:02 GMT
Sometimes it's hard to get roles after a long running show. It looks like everyone on Smallville had this problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 13:34:05 GMT
Sometimes it's hard to get roles after a long running show. It looks like everyone on Smallville had this problem. Yes. It is. As I was just saying on another thread I am surprised over how many actors who had leading roles in really popular TV Shows went on to have what many would see as 'wasted careers' when they had big fanbases that would have got another show ratings for sure having them play the main stars in them and it will be interesting to see how Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles careers go after 'Supernatural' ends 'cause they have played Sam and Dean Winchester for 14 seasons now and will be ending on Season 15 and they might end up getting typecast and go back to doing 'Supernatural' again. Jared said last year they were talking about keeping the show going after it ended as yearly TV movies and since 'Supernatural' is ending on their terms that might still happen. I think some 'Smallville' actors got lucky though like Kristin Kreuk got 'Beauty and the Beast' and is the main star of another TV Show now and that is a lot more than others can say they have got.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Apr 14, 2019 14:27:09 GMT
Sometimes it's hard to get roles after a long running show. It looks like everyone on Smallville had this problem. Yes. It is. As I was just saying on another thread I am surprised over how many actors who had leading roles in really popular TV Shows went on to have what many would see as 'wasted careers' when they had big fanbases that would have got another show ratings for sure having them play the main stars in them and it will be interesting to see how Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles careers go after 'Supernatural' ends 'cause they have played Sam and Dean Winchester for 14 seasons now and will be ending on Season 15 and they might end up getting typecast and go back to doing 'Supernatural' again. Jared said last year they were talking about keeping the show going after it ended as yearly TV movies and since 'Supernatural' is ending on their terms that might still happen. I think some 'Smallville' actors got lucky though like Kristin Kreuk got 'Beauty and the Beast' and is the main star of another TV Show now and that is a lot more than others can say they have got. I would hope typecasting isn't as much a problem as it used to be. There may still be a factor of it to some degree, but at the same time, with the quantity of shows on TV now compared to even just 20 years ago; audience awareness of an actor in a specific role is a lot more diluted and exists more on the periphery than it used to. So even though Tom Welling may be well known as having played Clark Kent on Smallville, even by people who never watched the show, he arguably never attained the level of association as say, Jaleel White playing Steve Urkel or Henry Winkler as Fonzie. It's also a lot more common now for a TV actor to do movies; and it's almost a foregone conclusion that if you're on a popular enough show that you would at least try to leverage that popularity into making movies. Whereas 30/40 years ago or more TV work was pretty much the death knell for a movie career. But I also think leading a successful series for a large chunk of time changes things a little for an actor. Suddenly there isn't as much pressure to move on to the next project, unless you want to disassociate yourself from that role, because unlike so many other actors, you're financially stable - probably for the rest of your life if wanted to be. So the only reason to take the next acting job isn't necessarily to make your mark, if you feel you've already done that, but rather because it's simply something you want to do. And so you see a lot of actors go into performing on stage or try something new that offers creative fulfillment, like becoming a director. That's not to say people don't try to get them to recapture their so-called glory days; just look at how the Arrowverse purportedly offered Tom to play Superman on Supergirl.
|
|