Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I agree with your 1st/2nd string assessments. And honestly, pretty much all the MCU characters were Marvel's second or third tier before the movies got made. Spidey and Logan are the only characters that can hang with Supes, Bats, and WW in terms of general cultural awareness.
I dunno, growing up the major characters/"settings" (based almost entirely on things other than comic books, it wasnt something we got into until our late teens) for my friends and I were Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Ironman, Captain America (so basically the main male elements of the Avengers), and the X-men (as a whole rather than just Wolverine. In fact, most of us didn't really like Wolverine that much and leaned more towards Rogue/Storm/Cyclops/Gambit). Closely behind them would have been Green Lantern, Flash, Thor, Punisher (personal favorite at the time) and Hulk (these were characters we were familiar with, but not as popular as the previous 5 I mentioned). Aquaman was derided as useless (I always thought he was cool), Wonder Woman was for girls (and thus in 'who cares' territory), and Fantastic Four was basically "Seriously, who gives a feth?" (they had a tv show and exposure, but god I always hated them for some reason). Outside of that were a random assortment of heroes that we could maybe recognize on name or sight, but didn't have any real knowledge of.
But that's you, and look where you're posting.
Most non-comics fans weren't very familiar with most of those Marvel characters before the movies. People know that Superman is Clark Kent, loves Lois, and that he fights Lex Luthor, and people know about rich guy Bruce Wayne who dresses like a bat and fights clowns with the Batmobile and various gadgets. But they didn't know about Tony Stark and Iron Man. They might have been generally familiar with Cap, but only as a guy with a shield and not that he's Steve Rogers, a laboratory-created super-soldier from WWII. They didn't know who Nick Fury is, or about Hawkeye or Black Widow.
Give Marvel credit...they elevated those characters. They had to, because they didn't have Spidey or Wolverine. And that's why they had to do all the introductory origin films, and WB doesn't.
You missed the part where I said that I wasnt into comics until much later. In fact Ive only really been reading comics for the past 3 or 4 years now. Maybe youre too old to remember or you didnt watch enough tv or whatever, but Ironman did have a cartoon series, as did several of those other characters (or they were part of other characters series). I think the general public is a bit better versed in comic heroes then you realize or give credit for.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
It looks like it's going for a closer market to Smallville than Arrow which is fine with me. Not everything has to be at the same audience after all.
The actress seems to fit in well, I've got no complaints about her.
I do find it quite funny that her buddy seems to fit closer to what I thought of as Jimmy Olsen than the actor who is. In saying that, the actual 'James' Olsen actor seems good. He doesn't look like he's going to be the romance angle either people were saying. Instead, he seems to be more of a mentorish role.
I hope it's successful, it could do good things for opening up comics more for girls.
I will say the Jimmy Olsen doesn't look right for a Jimmy Olsen. Too hunky, not geeky enough.
But yeah, the mix of what names they will/will not say on the tv shows amuse me. We can say Super Girl and Kalel, but not Super Man. The Flash has no problem calling him The Flash, but they still refuse to say Green Arrow and just use Arrow.
"Shouldn't she be called Super... woman?"
"What do you think is so bad about 'girl'? I'm a girl. And your boss. And powerful. And rich. And hot. And smart. So if you perceive Supergirl as anything less than excellent isn't the real problem... you?"
Glad someone said it. Thank you, Ms. McBeal.
BlaxicanX wrote: I'm hoping it's successful and serves as a gateway for more female heroes on the screens, both silver and otherwise.
Why?
Female superheroes are worthless unless they're good characters to begin with. Same applies to male superheroes. Would Armless Tiger Man be any more or less awesome if he were Armless Tiger Woman? I doubt it. It's the character - their personality, history, abilities and perhaps even their costume that make superheroes compelling - not their gender. And if gender is their most defining trait, or the trait they are most defined by, then they're a pretty shallow character.
To put it another way:
We don't need more female characters. We don't need fewer female charactrs either. Or male characters. We need good characters.
BlaxicanX wrote: I'm hoping it's successful and serves as a gateway for more female heroes on the screens, both silver and otherwise.
Why?
Female superheroes are worthless unless they're good characters to begin with. Same applies to male superheroes. Would Armless Tiger Man be any more or less awesome if he were Armless Tiger Woman? I doubt it. It's the character - their personality, history, abilities and perhaps even their costume that make superheroes compelling - not their gender. And if gender is their most defining trait, or the trait they are most defined by, then they're a pretty shallow character.
To put it another way:
We don't need more female characters. We don't need fewer female charactrs either. Or male characters. We need good characters.
What does any of this have to do what with I said?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
H.B.M.C. wrote: Same reason they can't say Batman on Arrow/killed off Deadshot on Arrow/can't say Gotham on Arrow:
DC are weird.
I think the reason they're not calling him Green Arrow is because it's part of the story-arc. EG "The Vigilante" > "Arrow" > "Green Arrow."
To be honest, I think it's a different cause this time. I remember reading about the 'Birds of Prey' show from the early 2000's, one of the things that its fanbase turned against the show was that they were constantly teasing 'Batman' turning up in it. So by avoiding specifically saying 'Superman' they're probably trying to avoid that issue. Like they said at the start, this isn't his story.
Hmm, not really convinced by that video. If, like the trailer, the show ends up being 70:30 ratio of soap drama:superheroic ass-kicking, then I doubt I'll be watching.
Which is a shame, as the brief shots of said ass-kicking looks awesome, but if I have sit through hours of teen drama, bad jokes and costume design to get to that, then it'll get boring quickly...
H.B.M.C. wrote: Same reason they can't say Batman on Arrow/killed off Deadshot on Arrow/can't say Gotham on Arrow:
DC are weird.
I think the reason they're not calling him Green Arrow is because it's part of the story-arc. EG "The Vigilante" > "Arrow" > "Green Arrow."
To be honest, I think it's a different cause this time. I remember reading about the 'Birds of Prey' show from the early 2000's, one of the things that its fanbase turned against the show was that they were constantly teasing 'Batman' turning up in it. So by avoiding specifically saying 'Superman' they're probably trying to avoid that issue. Like they said at the start, this isn't his story.
They actually make a reference to calling him Green Arrow right at the beginning of the series and someone, I forget if it was Oliver himself, said that was a stupid name.
This is TV 'meh' not TV 'Good'. Remember that the bar has been raised on TV special effects in the last three years. What used to be Movie 'Good' is now TV 'OK' because you can download luxrender for free (meaning, if you have the modeling software and staff, and a big enough render farm, you can make Guardians of the Galaxy, or the latest Jurassic Park in your basement. It's the processing power that's the expensive and time consuming part now).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/14 22:31:58
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
H.B.M.C. wrote: Same reason they can't say Batman on Arrow/killed off Deadshot on Arrow/can't say Gotham on Arrow:
DC are weird.
I think the reason they're not calling him Green Arrow is because it's part of the story-arc. EG "The Vigilante" > "Arrow" > "Green Arrow."
To be honest, I think it's a different cause this time. I remember reading about the 'Birds of Prey' show from the early 2000's, one of the things that its fanbase turned against the show was that they were constantly teasing 'Batman' turning up in it. So by avoiding specifically saying 'Superman' they're probably trying to avoid that issue. Like they said at the start, this isn't his story.
They actually make a reference to calling him Green Arrow right at the beginning of the series and someone, I forget if it was Oliver himself, said that was a stupid name.
Heh, and one of the recent episodes of "The Flash" we got to read the by-line on the newspaper which called him "Green Arrow"
It has been a big point of "Arrow" this season that Oliver has to shift his identity and style from "The Vigilante"/"The Arrow" to become something different and new--again.
I feel like we're building towards "Green Arrow" in the next season though.
I dunno, I thought it looked ok.
I'll keep an open mind until I've seen a few episodes.
I've never been a huge fan of Kryptonians as a whole, but this looks watchable so far
If the thought of something makes me giggle for longer than 15 seconds, I am to assume that I am not allowed to do it. item 87, skippys list
DC:70S+++G+++M+++B+++I++Pw40k86/f#-D+++++A++++/cWD86R+++++T(D)DM++
H.B.M.C. wrote: Same reason they can't say Batman on Arrow/killed off Deadshot on Arrow/can't say Gotham on Arrow:
DC are weird.
I think the reason they're not calling him Green Arrow is because it's part of the story-arc. EG "The Vigilante" > "Arrow" > "Green Arrow."
To be honest, I think it's a different cause this time. I remember reading about the 'Birds of Prey' show from the early 2000's, one of the things that its fanbase turned against the show was that they were constantly teasing 'Batman' turning up in it. So by avoiding specifically saying 'Superman' they're probably trying to avoid that issue. Like they said at the start, this isn't his story.
They actually make a reference to calling him Green Arrow right at the beginning of the series and someone, I forget if it was Oliver himself, said that was a stupid name.
Heh, and one of the recent episodes of "The Flash" we got to read the by-line on the newspaper which called him "Green Arrow"
It has been a big point of "Arrow" this season that Oliver has to shift his identity and style from "The Vigilante"/"The Arrow" to become something different and new--again.
I feel like we're building towards "Green Arrow" in the next season though.
I did think for sure he was going to use that name in the season finale. Instead we got Red Arrow. But yeah, maybe next season.
Legion: Dark Angels 
