The Four Color Media Monitor

The Arrow series on the CW network that's based on Green Arrow may have had leftism shoehorned in, but even if that weren't a problem, for it's second season, it could be facing another: the intrusion of too many superheroes and superpowers:

For the coming second season of its superhero series "Arrow," the CW Network is adding actual superpowers.

"Arrow" is based on the DC Comics character Green Arrow, who was introduced in 1941, and it features a costumed crime fighter, played by Stephen Amell, who is great with a bow but doesn't have any supernatural abilities.

To differentiate the TV hero from the comic-book character, the series splits its time between the Arrow and his alter ego, a billionaire playboy named Oliver Queen who picked up his archery skills when he was marooned on a mysterious island for five years.

Come on, isn't that what the comics did too? Take time to focus on Ollie in either of his guises? The comics where he'd be spotlighted did both too; it's not like he just appeared in costume 100 percent of the time. Again, a mainstream paper carried a very narrow view of history.

"We always pitched this show more like Jason Bourne than a comic book," says Greg Berlanti, a writer, executive producer and co-creator of "Arrow." "But we're changing some of it up this season."

Those changes include a shift in genre, from action-adventure series to superhero-driven drama.

Arrow "doesn't want to be the vigilante anymore, he wants to be the hero," says Marc Guggenheim, a writer, executive producer and co-creator of "Arrow."

Does that mean Batman was never both hero and vigilante? Guggenheim's logic is flawed to the max.

As the CW seeks to continue broadening its programming beyond its core demographic of women 18 to 34 years old, the show's creators have teamed up with DC Entertainment's chief creative officer, Geoff Johns, to introduce another DC character, Barry Allen/the Flash, played by "Glee" co-star Grant Gustin, into three of this season's 22 episodes.

Oh dear. Johns, the worst hack writer for DC who turns gold into straw - and swamps his writing in repellent violence - is going to write this? Anybody looking for great adaptations of comics would be advised to look elsewhere. Johns, as a co-producer on the Green Lantern movie, irked some of the staff on that fiasco, and his influence here could be just as bad. Even if he doesn't write the episodes with the Flash as badly as the issues of the comics he wrote, it'll still come off feeling very absurd for anybody familiar with his work: he was willing to stoop to so much crude, copious, repetitive violence, yet in a TV show, he'll be willing to take a restrained approach? That'll only tell just how hypocritical he could be.

There are a few comments responding to the WSJ article suggesting that WB/CW's plans for the second season are gearing up to be a big mistake, and that the audience will be alienated. The first one says:

How Sad.
Do they not get what makes Batman more popular than Superman?
It's because he does what he does without super powers. He takes the risks that Superman does not have to face because he is invulnerable. Oliver Queen is already a bit separate from us by being rich, but lets face it, its kind of hard to be the Super hero if you have to work 9-5 (or worse). I LIKE Arrow, I WATCH Arrow, I have a feeling this is going to make it go downhill awfully fast.

I have to take issue with part of this one. Why should Batman be more popular than Superman just because he doesn't have powers and his world is built on less sci-fi elements? That's a ridiculous argument, and besides, plenty of sci-fi heroes use their heads as much as their powers too, and certainly if the writers make an effort to emphasize that. The point is that they're taking a show that was built on adventure and suspense and turning it into something that waters down its significance - a guest platform for other heroes, much like what Smallville became as it went along (and towards the end, even that became increasingly mired in leftist politics).

The next 2 are shorter, but make the point better:

So let me get this correct. They had a very successful show so they go and change it. If it ain't broke don't fix it is a great way to look at this.

And:

Well poo. I was already disappointed that the Flash would be on. I really liked not having meta humans on the show. I'd be really surprised if I watch this one season 3 but I'll give this season a chance at least.

They already hinted their Flash story would be a backdoor pilot, an idea that hasn't always worked whenever it was tried, because in a lot of the TV shows where an episode turned up that was built as a backdoor, the real stars of the show appeared less than the guests did (one example is a season 2 episode of Renegade). Here, it's unlikely to work because Johns was chosen to write the teleplay.

In fact, a big flaw that's becoming noticeable with some of these TV shows based on comics today is that they're becoming more like showcases for notable heroes and villains, and done too often, it dampens the impact had in making them more stand alone. Arrow looks like it's on its way to becoming little different from Smallville with guest appearances by other superheroes in the DCU, with more stories devoted to spotlighting superpowered guests than in telling a self-contained story focusing mainly on the star of the show. Hard to believe these adaptations are accomplishing much if this is what they plan on doing.

Labels: Batman, dc comics, Flash, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, Superman, violence