|
|
Post by hardball on Oct 18, 2018 3:02:32 GMT
The Arrowverse is already a very, very busy place. From the humble beginnings of Arrow we were then given The Flash, Supergirl and Legends of Tomorrow, with Black Lightning also considered to be unofficially part of the franchise. And the family’s about to get a little bit bigger, too, as Ruby Rose’s Batwoman is joining the fray later this year in “Elseworlds,” the yearly crossover, before being granted her own solo series. But it seems that The CW feels as if there’s room for one more, as Fandom Wire reports that talks are heating up to give Tyler Hoechlin’s Superman his own show on the network. With Henry Cavill out of the role on the big screen, Warner Bros. is hoping to keep the Man of Steel in the spotlight and they’ve given their blessing to The CW to develop a show based on Hoechlin’s version of the iconic hero. From what we understand, WB has “lost confidence in Superman’s ability to draw audiences to the cinema” and considering how much praise the Arrowverse’s Big Blue Boy Scout has seen, they feel that’s the better place for him right now. Furthermore, the aforementioned crossover will serve as a backdoor pilot for Supes’ own show, and if fans respond well to him again, it’s very likely the series will take flight. Fandom Wire is quick to stress that this is still in the early stages of development and there’s no guarantee a Superman TV show will actually happen. However, if the crossover goes down well, it’s probable that The CW will move forward with the project quickly and start pushing it into production. And let’s be honest, it’s almost a certainty that “Elseworlds” is going to be a hit. There’s much to get excited about when it comes to the next crossover and fans are beyond eager to finally lay eyes on it and figure out how all the mysterious teases we’ve been seeing lately fit together. Chief amongst them being the Man of Steel’s black suit, which we caught wind of the other day. Of course, we’ll keep an ear out for any further information on this proposed TV show for Superman, but in the meantime, feel free to head on down to the comments section and let us know if you’d be interested in seeing it. wegotthiscovered.com/tv/cw-developing-superman-tv-show-arrowverse/ |
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Oct 18, 2018 3:30:38 GMT
Tyler is a great Superman, and Bitsie Tulloch will probably be a great Lois.
I'm on board...
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Oct 18, 2018 4:21:01 GMT
About damn time.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Oct 18, 2018 10:20:47 GMT
Cool I just hope it'll be Superman on Earth-1 because Superman from Supergirl is already a character way too deep into his own story to just jump in on imo, but Superman finally emerging on Earth-1 would be cool to see, also for the future with things like Supergirl having to interact with a alternative version of her cousin could be cool.
The idea Superman cant draw an audience at the box office is stupid though, MOS did really good it just didn't do TDK numbers which no other DC films but TDKR has done, and that's with MOS being divisive, BVS is the 3rd highest grossing DC film ever and that's with BVS being one of the most disappointing films of all time, and JL sure it did poorly but how can you blame Superman for that when he wasn't part of the marketing at all, or most of the movie, why blame him when Batman & Wonder Woman were front and centre in the marketing and story?...god I hate the WB sometimes, just make a good Superman movie and people will come out to watch it FFS.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Oct 18, 2018 13:29:13 GMT
I'm not really surprised. People have responded positively to Tyler and have been clamoring for one for quite awhile. I wonder if this will be set years before Supergirl, so we watch him starting out or will it continue on in the present?
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Oct 18, 2018 14:18:54 GMT
Cool I just hope it'll be Superman on Earth-1 because Superman from Supergirl is already a character way too deep into his own story to just jump in on imo, but Superman finally emerging on Earth-1 would be cool to see, also for the future with things like Supergirl having to interact with a alternative version of her cousin could be cool. The idea Superman cant draw an audience at the box office is stupid though, MOS did really good it just didn't do TDK numbers which no other DC films but TDKR has done, and that's with MOS being divisive, BVS is the 3rd highest grossing DC film ever and that's with BVS being one of the most disappointing films of all time, and JL sure it did poorly but how can you blame Superman for that when he wasn't part of the marketing at all, or most of the movie, why blame him when Batman & Wonder Woman were front and centre in the marketing and story?...god I hate the WB sometimes, just make a good Superman movie and people will come out to watch it FFS. I do agree, wanting to see Earth 1's Superman emerge; though at the same time it seems contradictory to say, "here's a Superman you've already met and like, so we're going to make a show about a different one, but still played by the same actor." They've certainly teased the concept of alternate versions of these characters, and have now solidly built it into Laurel's story, but there is something that seems odds about that as a premise for a series. The flip side of that is allowing Supergirl to continue standing on her own; that even though Superman still exists and we're watching a series about him, he's not going to pop up every week to help solve Kara's problems or vice verse if the two shows are centered on separate earths. Plus there's the potential of then introducing an alternate version of Kara, ostensibly still played by Melissa Benoist; where they can do stuff with that character they would never do on Supergirl - or vice versa in regards to either version of Superman. They could do the Death of Superman story on Earth 38, but still have the Superman series set on earth 1; and then becomes this interesting dynamic of Supergirl periodically meeting this man during crossovers who is simultaneously her cousin, but not her cousin. And with his death on her world, even more responsibility would be put on her shoulders. To that end though, I have less of an issue with them jumping into the middle of his story; I don't think we need to see yet another Superman origin story, not up front. Not after 10 years of Smallville and half of MoS focusing on Clark Kent becoming Superman. The only real example I can think of where this wasn't necessary would be Superman the animated series, where they just cut to the chase, but it still worked; and you eventually got a lot of that background through flashback episodes when it was needed. I'd prefer something more non-linear, like This is Us, where they can bounce around and tease or exam stuff that's happened in the past, but only when it's relevant and not conveniently tied together the way the first five seasons of Arrow had Oliver dealing with something in the present that directly related to something that happened almost exactly five years earlier in his flashbacks. I've also posted before that I'd really like to see a live action take on Superman that takes into account his 80 years of history and the cultural impact he has as the worlds first conventional superhero; the likes of which all others afterwards have been modeled. The nature of his powers would still allow him to be 100+ years old and still look like he's in his early 30s (I'm not bitter at all to look Tyler Hoechlin up to find his age, only to see he's only 31......  ) There's a lot that could be explored, as such a seasoned and mature Superman would have seen the world change, and maybe even become disillusioned about his relevance; and watching the people he cares about grow old and die, while the rest of the world popularize and satirize the identity of Superman so much, that after he's dropped off the grid for a few decades, there's at least a full generation who think "Superman" is just a myth or fictional character. Every iteration of Superman, whether an animated series, TV show or movie, drops the character into the modern age, but they generally don't consider the implications of subtracting someone like Superman from our pop culture from so much of our recent history. And with the likes of Smallville or now potentially the Arrowverse, he just becomes the latest, if albeit the most powerful, in a long series of previously established costumed heroes; instead of the trailblazer who set the standard. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 13:03:04 GMT
That will be awesome if it is true Hardball. Some people might disagree with me on this but I personally think characters like Superman, Batman and Spider-Man are better suited for TV 'cause they have so many characters and villains they don't use in the movies that fans want to see that can be used in TV shows and one of the biggest problems with the Superman movies is Warner Bros just don't seem to be willing to take a chance on any villains outside of Lex Luthor and Zod and every time we get a new one of those two (mostly Lex) is the villain while other villains are tossd to the side. TV shows like 'Lois and Clark' and 'Smallville' did a lot more for Superman and Superman fans in particular than the movies ever did 'cause they used dozens of villains like Braniac, Darkseid, Doomsday, Bizarrio, Metallio, Maxima etc for the very first time and a new Superman TV show gives us the chance to see those villains again and more this time like Atomic Skull, Parasite, The Eradicator and Imperiex. As I mentioned on another thread it has been confirmed three times in 'Supergirl' Chloe Sullivan exists and is Clark's longtime friend so if this goes through I think we are going to see Chloe again but this time she will be played by a different actress. I would have liked to have seen Allison play her again but after all the controversy I can't see that happening now. 
|
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Oct 20, 2018 13:40:42 GMT
I think comic book movies could benefit from the James Bond treatment. A long running franchise with an ever changing roster of actors and directors, with the films adapting to the times. I would prefer this to constantly rebooting everything every ten years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2018 12:30:00 GMT
I think comic book movies could benefit from the James Bond treatment. A long running franchise with an ever changing roster of actors and directors, with the films adapting to the times. I would prefer this to constantly rebooting everything every ten years.  |
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Nov 4, 2018 17:25:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by BexxyJ on Nov 5, 2018 5:07:31 GMT
I think comic book movies could benefit from the James Bond treatment. A long running franchise with an ever changing roster of actors and directors, with the films adapting to the times. I would prefer this to constantly rebooting everything every ten years. Was one bad movie really worth cancelling the entire thing over?  Don’t get me wrong. Batman and Robin was a turd. A big brown one in a bun, splattered and squishy with cheese on the side that somebody stomped on in the garden and picked up and served on a plate with potato salad  but if they threw that out the window and made a better one it could have kept going. |
|
|
|
Post by BexxyJ on Nov 5, 2018 5:08:10 GMT
WTF? Batman was going to vs Godzilla. How could have that worked?  |
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Nov 5, 2018 5:26:40 GMT
Speaking of planned but never made Batman films WTF? Batman was going to vs Godzilla. How could have that worked? |
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 5, 2018 10:28:38 GMT
Yeah. I would have loved to have seen that with a character like Batman 'cause then we would have been able to see the entire Bat Family and all of Batman's biggest villains on screen and they could have used the franchise to launch multiple spinoff movies over the years and gone even further than James Bond but the failure of 'Batman & Robin' put a stop to that happening the first time and by the sounds of what they were planning with the franchise in the 90s they were going to keep Batman going for a long time. The end of what was going to be 'Batman Unchained' was going to see Dick leave and become Nightwing and get his own Nightwing movie and they were going to replace him with Jason Todd as Robin and there were also plans for a 'Birds of Prey' movie. I think they could still do it now but they would have to go back to the start or the early years. Was one bad movie really worth cancelling the entire thing over? Don’t get me wrong. Batman and Robin was a turd. A big brown one in a bun, splattered and squishy with cheese on the side that somebody stomped on in the garden and picked up and served on a plate with potato salad but if they threw that out the window and made a better one it could have kept going. It wasn't so much because it was a bad movie but that it was a flop, it made less than double it's budget which is minimum for a film to be considered a success, add to that however many millions also spent on marketing and B&R could have cost them easily over $20+ million, also I think the merchandising for the film didn't do that well either, which is the main reason for the tone shift from Returns to Forever as whilst Returns did over triple it's budget in the theatres the dark and Burtonness of it did not do merchandising any favours, merch being the biggest factor in the success of Batman 89, sure it made $400m at the box office but it made over double that in the next year or so in merchandising.
Batman & Robin also being the lowest grossing domestic as well as overall of the Batman films even to this day, as well as the most expensive at the time by a considerable amount, it just all led to WB and DC going nope fuck it, and not just to Batman but comic movies in general, which had Blade and to an extent X-Men not already been far enough along in the pipeline may have killed the genre completely as I think other films also stalled out around that time also.
Quality rarely factors into what choices the studios make, if it did most horror franchises wouldn't get the endless amount of sequels like they do Transformers would have died in the last decade, and the DCEU would have been put on hold after 2016, as is all those films or genre's made money, and is why directors like Guillermo Del Toro have for the most part had to rely on their hardcore fandom to rally behind their stuff or hope atleast one executive he has to deal with is a fan or an eye for quality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2019 11:39:40 GMT
Was one bad movie really worth cancelling the entire thing over? Don’t get me wrong. Batman and Robin was a turd. A big brown one in a bun, splattered and squishy with cheese on the side that somebody stomped on in the garden and picked up and served on a plate with potato salad but if they threw that out the window and made a better one it could have kept going. It wasn't so much because it was a bad movie but that it was a flop, it made less than double it's budget which is minimum for a film to be considered a success, add to that however many millions also spent on marketing and B&R could have cost them easily over $20+ million, also I think the merchandising for the film didn't do that well either, which is the main reason for the tone shift from Returns to Forever as whilst Returns did over triple it's budget in the theatres the dark and Burtonness of it did not do merchandising any favours, merch being the biggest factor in the success of Batman 89, sure it made $400m at the box office but it made over double that in the next year or so in merchandising.
Batman & Robin also being the lowest grossing domestic as well as overall of the Batman films even to this day, as well as the most expensive at the time by a considerable amount, it just all led to WB and DC going nope fuck it, and not just to Batman but comic movies in general, which had Blade and to an extent X-Men not already been far enough along in the pipeline may have killed the genre completely as I think other films also stalled out around that time also.
Quality rarely factors into what choices the studios make, if it did most horror franchises wouldn't get the endless amount of sequels like they do Transformers would have died in the last decade, and the DCEU would have been put on hold after 2016, as is all those films or genre's made money, and is why directors like Guillermo Del Toro have for the most part had to rely on their hardcore fandom to rally behind their stuff or hope atleast one executive he has to deal with is a fan or an eye for quality.
I think the biggest problem with Batman with Warner Bros is they waited too long to do it and now you have a huge franchise that is over 80 years old with so many characters that have spunoff into their own series and become very popular in their own light and only a very small percentage of them have appeared on screen. I will always say I blame the 'Dark Knight' trilogy for it 100 percent 'cause Christopher Nolan kept other DC movies from being made and if Warner Bros has adapted Paul Dini's script which become the 'Arkham Asylum' game instead they would have had an established Bat universe set up.  |
|
|
|
Post by BexxyJ on Jan 8, 2019 7:33:46 GMT
It wasn't so much because it was a bad movie but that it was a flop, it made less than double it's budget which is minimum for a film to be considered a success, add to that however many millions also spent on marketing and B&R could have cost them easily over $20+ million, also I think the merchandising for the film didn't do that well either, which is the main reason for the tone shift from Returns to Forever as whilst Returns did over triple it's budget in the theatres the dark and Burtonness of it did not do merchandising any favours, merch being the biggest factor in the success of Batman 89, sure it made $400m at the box office but it made over double that in the next year or so in merchandising.
Batman & Robin also being the lowest grossing domestic as well as overall of the Batman films even to this day, as well as the most expensive at the time by a considerable amount, it just all led to WB and DC going nope fuck it, and not just to Batman but comic movies in general, which had Blade and to an extent X-Men not already been far enough along in the pipeline may have killed the genre completely as I think other films also stalled out around that time also.
Quality rarely factors into what choices the studios make, if it did most horror franchises wouldn't get the endless amount of sequels like they do Transformers would have died in the last decade, and the DCEU would have been put on hold after 2016, as is all those films or genre's made money, and is why directors like Guillermo Del Toro have for the most part had to rely on their hardcore fandom to rally behind their stuff or hope atleast one executive he has to deal with is a fan or an eye for quality.
I think the biggest problem with Batman with Warner Bros is they waited too long to do it and now you have a huge franchise that is over 80 years old with so many characters that have spunoff into their own series and become very popular in their own light and only a very small percentage of them have appeared on screen. I will always say I blame the 'Dark Knight' trilogy for it 100 percent 'cause Christopher Nolan kept other DC movies from being made and if Warner Bros has adapted Paul Dini's script which become the 'Arkham Asylum' game instead they would have had an established Bat universe set up. WTF? The next Batman movie is going to be another reboot?  You didn’t tell me that. These movies are getting out of hand and we already got another Spiderman reboot. Does Hollywood even know how to make successful movies anymore or are they just going to keep remaking the same shit over and over like mice going round and round on a wheel? |
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Jan 10, 2019 18:46:10 GMT
Yeah, but at least the Spider-Man reboot gave us a great film. So win-win!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 12:51:07 GMT
Yeah, but at least the Spider-Man reboot gave us a great film. So win-win! Dazz brings up some good points here. ‘Batman & Robin’ was a major flop and the damage could not be undone after that movie but I do think the ‘Batman’ franchise could have survived longer and had its shared universe with the spinoff movies they were planning if they had made a better movie than ‘Batman & Robin’ that had the same success as ‘Batman Forever.’ They had ‘Batman: Triumphant’ in development before ‘Batman & Robin’ but Warner Bros thought the movie was too dark and forced Joel to make a lighter movie which is how we ended up getting 'Batman & Robin' and and we none of us will ever really know how the original Batman franchise would have went if Warner Bros never interfered but it is possible it could have still been around today and continuing like the James Bond movies with a heap of Bat Family spinoff movies and we could be getting a 'Red Hood and the Outlaws'movie this year connected to a 30 year old franchise instead of another reboot of Batman or 'Triumphant' could have been a bigger disaster than 'Batman & Robin' and lead to Warner Bros deciding to drop all future Batman movies.
I think the biggest problem with Batman with Warner Bros is they waited too long to do it and now you have a huge franchise that is over 80 years old with so many characters that have spunoff into their own series and become very popular in their own light and only a very small percentage of them have appeared on screen. I will always say I blame the 'Dark Knight' trilogy for it 100 percent 'cause Christopher Nolan kept other DC movies from being made and if Warner Bros has adapted Paul Dini's script which become the 'Arkham Asylum' game instead they would have had an established Bat universe set up. WTF? The next Batman movie is going to be another reboot? You didn’t tell me that. These movies are getting out of hand and we already got another Spiderman reboot. Does Hollywood even know how to make successful movies anymore or are they just going to keep remaking the same shit over and over like mice going round and round on a wheel? 
|
|
|
|
Post by BexxyJ on Mar 30, 2019 11:52:17 GMT
Yeah, but at least the Spider-Man reboot gave us a great film. So win-win! WTF? The next Batman movie is going to be another reboot? You didn’t tell me that. These movies are getting out of hand and we already got another Spiderman reboot. Does Hollywood even know how to make successful movies anymore or are they just going to keep remaking the same shit over and over like mice going round and round on a wheel? I always have good points.  If these bozos only listened to me we would have still have those individual bags of black jelly beans, Oasis would be releasing new albums, Cat Stevens would still be alive and Hollywood wouldn’t be rolling down the gutter in a pile of trashy remakes. 
|
|
)
Don’t get me wrong. Batman and Robin was a turd. A big brown one in a bun, splattered and squishy with cheese on the side that somebody stomped on in the garden and picked up and served on a plate with potato salad 
but if they threw that out the window and made a better one it could have kept going. 
You didn’t tell me that. These movies are getting out of hand and we already got another Spiderman reboot. Does Hollywood even know how to make successful movies anymore or are they just going to keep remaking the same shit over and over like mice going round and round on a wheel? 
If these bozos only listened to me we would have still have those individual bags of black jelly beans, Oasis would be releasing new albums, Cat Stevens would still be alive and Hollywood wouldn’t be rolling down the gutter in a pile of trashy remakes.