The new GA TV show Arrow

I was looking forward to the new "Arrow" show, since Oliver has long been one of my favorite characters. But, then I saw this line in the promo:

After being marooned for five years on a remote island, billionaire Oliver Queen returns home with a mysterious agenda and a very lethal new set of skills that he uses in a war on crime.

Considering killing someone in the 1970s set him off on a quest for redemption, I'd say this is a pretty big change. And one that probably destroys any chance of me liking this show.

Crap.

I'm still trying to work out what was wrong with calling it 'Green Arrow'.

tony ingram wrote:I'm still trying to work out what was wrong with calling it 'Green Arrow'.

Sounds odd, to non-comic readers, I guess. I don't mind change, just some changes I don't like.

Mbast1 wrote:

tony ingram wrote:I'm still trying to work out what was wrong with calling it 'Green Arrow'.

Sounds odd, to non-comic readers, I guess.

Then why bother to base it on Green Arrow?

tony ingram wrote:Then why bother to base it on Green Arrow?

Because they think the concept will work, but think the name might be too much. There are lots of things comics fans accept that others won't in a story.

Maybe they just don't know what "lethal" means. . .? I don't know, I'm reaching.

The oddest thing for me is how hard they're trying to distance themselves from Smallville. I mean, I can only speak from my own experience, but everyone I know LOVED the Green Arrow in Smallville. Why not just do a straight spin-off?

Sam_Vimes wrote: Why not just do a straight spin-off?

When I first heard of it, I thought it WAS a spin-off. Not sure why either. Going for a larger audience, I think, but that's not a given either.

Part of me hopes they GET that larger audience, but another, much nerdier part of me hopes they don't because then I'll have to hear mainstream people call him "Arrow". Argh.

I've seen a couple of promo slots and trailers. It looks awful. As in it looks cheap and corny.

I also very much doubt that American mainstream TV is ready for a fully socialist hero yet, so really this isn't going to be about Ollie Queen, is it?

I'll pass.

BluesShark wrote:I also very much doubt that American mainstream TV is ready for a fully socialist hero yet, so really this isn't going to be about Ollie Queen, is it?

I may watch it, I'm not sure.
I disagree with your characterization, but only in that I don't think he's actually a socialist. He's left of center, and I like that about him, so if he's missing that it won't be as interesting to me.
That does bring up an issue for me. I am someone who doesn't mind changes in characters, even big ones, but when does that person become a different character?
And then you wonder why bother buying the rights to the source material. I mean, it's not as if tv never produces close-but-not-quite ripoffs...
(As much as I enjoyed Parker Lewis Can't Lose, it was little more than Ferris Bueller, as just one example)

I agree, Mbast1. Without his politics Ollie JUST isn't as interesting to me. I mean, I don't expect the show to be a soapbox or anything (I would actually hate that), but---wait, what am I doing? IT'S ON RIGHT NOW!!!

Sam_Vimes wrote: IT'S ON RIGHT NOW!!!

I missed it, I guess. Maybe on iTunes.
But, yes, his politics are central to his character (one of the reasons I've always thought that making superheroes have no discernable religion or politics flat and lifeless is just how vital those are to most people) and I doubt he'll be that interesting without them. But we'll see.
And it's Mike if that's easier to write...

Okay, Mikebast1.

But yeah, I'm sorry you missed the show. It was pretty good. Ollie was very much a social crusader, which is mostly what I was looking for, but sadly he didn't act all that much like. . .well, Ollie (for comparison's sake, Justin Hartley was a LOT closer). He was too serious and junk (didn't even make chili ONCE). Also, he killed a BUNCH of bad guys, which, as you pointed out, probably should've led to him running off to join an ashram or something. I couldn't help but like it, though. Great action scenes, some actual good jokes, lots of geeky Easter eggs, intrigue. . .show had it all!

Alas, it just didn't have Ollie.

EDIT: Quick but important correction! Ollie did not actually kill a bunch of dudes. The internet tells me he had some kind of knock-out arrows or something (the show didn't actually make that very clear), and he, in fact, only killed ONE person. He did so rather ruthlessly, though, so I don't know if that makes up for it.

Sam_Vimes wrote:Okay, Mikebast1.

Well, that made me laugh.

Sam_Vimes wrote:But yeah, I'm sorry you missed the show.

I got in from iTunes, so I'll see it over the weekend, I think.

Sam_Vimes wrote:and he, in fact, only killed ONE person. He did so rather ruthlessly, though, so I don't know if that makes up for it.

If so, that will be the show for me. I have no interest in murdering vigilantes. Just none.

Unfortunately, it seems modern audiences all too often don't believe in "heroes" who don't murder everyone who crosses them. I fear for the future.

tony ingram wrote:it seems modern audiences all too often don't believe in "heroes" who don't murder everyone who crosses them. I fear for the future.

Well, that is normal though, most past "heroes" killed left and right. There was a brief period of a few decades, but the idea that killing is part of being a hero has taken hold again.

I bought it from iTunes and watched some of it. He killed someone to protect his "secret". That is the end for me. It's not only not an Ollie I would/do care about, he's a murderer. No thanks.

Sam_Vimes wrote: Quick but important correction! Ollie did not actually kill a bunch of dudes. The internet tells me he had some kind of knock-out arrows or something (the show didn't actually make that very clear), and he, in fact, only killed ONE person. He did so rather ruthlessly, though, so I don't know if that makes up for it.

No, this isn't so. I watched for it, having seen your note before I finished, there were no "knockout" arrows. In a number of places you can clearly see the arrows he's using and they're the razor sharp ones, and you can see them sticking out of people later.
This isn't a show I'll be watching.

I'm tempted to say 'blame Mike Grell'. He started it...

Mbast1 wrote:He killed someone to protect his "secret".

And that, of course, destroys the show, because if he has to kill someone to keep it then it's not a secret worth keeping.

Lucy McGough wrote:And that, of course, destroys the show, because if he has to kill someone to keep it then it's not a secret worth keeping.

I, obviously, agree. I'm sure that will be explained as "reasonable" because of some bizarre conspiracy. I keep wondering if our fiction gets darker just because of "one-upmanship" in terms of action, or if we want it dark just so "heroes" can kill. (I mean this mostly in regards to superheroes).

I must have heard that knockout arrow thing from some crazy apologist, then. I didn't think they looked like anything but normal arrows, either, but I usually miss stuff. Sorry to have misled you.

But yeah, killing someone to keep a secret identity DOES seem rather out-of-bounds, doesn't it? Probably done for shock value or, as you say, "one-upmanship", but regardless of the motivation it still does damage to the character.

Sam_Vimes wrote:Sorry to have misled you.

Not how I see it at all. I just know that some fans will invent things that aren't there to explain away problems, but with your warning, I knew what to watch for.

Sam_Vimes wrote:But yeah, killing someone to keep a secret identity DOES seem rather out-of-bounds, doesn't it? Probably done for shock value or, as you say, "one-upmanship", but regardless of the motivation it still does damage to the character.

I suspect they're going to invent a world so ugly that it will seem justified, but that's part of the problem. Our fiction has become so paranoid.

It has indeed. I miss the days of innocent escapist fiction-by which I mean, not fiction in which nothing bad ever happens, but fiction in which people live by a strict moral code and the good guys usually win, without lowering themselves to the level of their opponents.

tony ingram wrote:It has indeed. I miss the days of innocent escapist fiction-by which I mean, not fiction in which nothing bad ever happens, but fiction in which people live by a strict moral code and the good guys usually win, without lowering themselves to the level of their opponents.

I could have been clearer. By "our fiction" I meant specifically superhero comics. I like dystopian fiction, I loved cyberpunk. I just think that making superheroes live in that world just to give them an excuse to be "badass" and kill is a very bad thing. It's reveling in misery, not rising above it. I love the LSH volume 4, but it's because they're the bright spot in that dark universe. (Which, all things considered, isn't that dark). Not because everyone is suffering.

You know, I've been reading a lot of "Showcase Presents" lately. Silly as those books may be, they certainly scratch that escapist itch. You know, kind of like STAN LEE.

Oh, and I just watched the latest Arrow today, incidentally. Still pretty good, but still a little too murderous. I mean, it seems like everyone Ollie shoots is just a bodyguard of the ACTUAL bad person. Do they really deserve to die? Are the writers even thinking about this?

Sam_Vimes wrote: Are the writers even thinking

I think this is the relevant part of the question. I'd say 'no'.

Sam_Vimes wrote:I mean, it seems like everyone Ollie shoots is just a bodyguard of the ACTUAL bad person. Do they really deserve to die? Are the writers even thinking about this?

Probably not, and this has long been an issue. In the 1989 Batman movie (which I love and have watched many times) there are scenes where it looks as though people are killed, but then when it comes to the Joker, he just can't do it. As though all those other people's lives didn't matter, except as plot points.

Well, the first episode premiered in Britain yesterday, and...
It isn't 'my' Green Arrow. And yes, he pointlessly kills someone. And Dinah Lance is a bitch, but that's no excuse for sleeping with her sister. And...oh, it just depressed me...

tony ingram wrote:It isn't 'my' Green Arrow.

This didn't bother me, I don't expect adaptations to be the same. It's just that it was a boring and ugly character, and making him "sort-of" GA didn't help.

"Ugly character" is a good description, I think. This Oliver Queen is not a hero, as far as I can see. He seems to have been a complete git before going to the island, and to now be a murderous complete git. He's more like the Punisher than Green Arrow.

There's just no room for hopeless idealists like Ollie Queen in today's world, I guess. I hear the show's doing quite well.

Sam_Vimes wrote:There's just no room for hopeless idealists like Ollie Queen in today's world, I guess.

No, and I think that's sad. I mean, it's normal for each generation to think itself sophisticated and all others before it naive, but it seems right now that we're beyond the point where any kind of idealist is seen as palatable. Makes for an ugly culture. Historically normal, I suppose, but I still think we should be progressing morally, instead of using the excuses we too often get.

Finally got round to seeing the first episode.

That just flat out sucked.

From the abyssmal sub-Blade Runner voice over used (delivered with all the nuance and care of a directory enquiries operator) to cover up the enormous holes in the plot, to a script that was constrcuted from '101 Boys Own Cliches' - I mean, could they have fitted another cliched piece of dialogue in to that script if they'd tried? Add in some pretty pedestrian design (why does every club/party on tv look almost exactly unlike every club/party in real life?) and acting that would have made a cigar store indian blush and overall iit was one of the worst 42 minutes of TV I've seen in recent years.

Yes, but did you like it...

BluesShark wrote:Finally got round to seeing the first episode.

That just flat out sucked.

That was the biggest problem. I can live with a character being one I don't like (I watched 8 seasons of Scrubs and I think JD is one of the worst tv characters ever) if it's worth it. This wasn't. Not even close.

tony ingram wrote:Yes, but did you like it...

Let's put it this way Tony. I was going to give it three episodes but faced with the reality of another one tonight I'll actually be watching University Challenge followed by either Hatfields v McCoys or Rich Hall's Invention of the Indian, both of which I have on Sky+.

Well, it is hard to compete with University Challenge...

Mbast1 wrote:

BluesShark wrote:Finally got round to seeing the first episode.

That just flat out sucked.

That was the biggest problem. I can live with a character being one I don't like (I watched 8 seasons of Scrubs and I think JD is one of the worst tv characters ever) if it's worth it. This wasn't. Not even close.

I never got the appeal of JD, either. It's kind of like the main guy in How I Met Your Mother. . .whose name I'm not sure of because I stopped watching when I realized the main guy was the worst guy.

Sam_Vimes wrote:I never got the appeal of JD, either. It's kind of like the main guy in How I Met Your Mother. . .whose name I'm not sure of because I stopped watching when I realized the main guy was the worst guy.

I had the exact same reaction (It's Ted). I don't know, when a few of the characters on tv were childish and immature, it was ok, but now it seems that that is the standard for "funny". Maybe I'm just old.

I don't know, man. I don't like it either, and if I'm "old" then I've REALLY wasted my life.

Incidentally, I checked in on Arrow again. Still murder-y. Maybe next week it won't be. . . .

I gave up after week one.

Sam_Vimes wrote:Incidentally, I checked in on Arrow again. Still murder-y. Maybe next week it
won't be. . . .

My girlfriend seems to like it, so I'm sure I'm going to wind up seeing an episode or another, but I just don't find it at all compelling.
Elementary on the other hand...

You know, I didn't think I'd like Elementary, as I'm a big fan of the BBC's "Sherlock" and it's a rather obvious rip-off, BUT it is ACTUALLY pretty good. Now that I know someone else likes it I feel less shame about cheating on Cumberbatch.

I'm gradually warming up to Elementary. But it's still not Sherlock Holmes.

Well. . .neither are YOU, Tony. Neither are YOU.

Sam_Vimes wrote:Well. . .neither are YOU, Tony. Neither are YOU.

But I'm not claiming to be!

I am, in fact, Hercule Poirot.

Really?!?! I should tell my dad, he's a great fan!

Maybe next they should make a show called "Order and Method" with Jack Black as a modern Poroit (AKA you). I'd recommend someone else if I could, but. . .we all know that's who'd get it.

That will no doubt be next up, right after 'Marple', starring Karen Gillan as an ex-prostitute single mother from South London trying to make it as a P.I in the American small town of Cabot Cove...

'Faithless' stars Brandon Routh as Brother Cadfael O'Hara, a hard-drinking, tough-talking Benedictine monk doing outreach work with drug users and hookers on the mean streets of Los Angeles.

Sam_Vimes wrote:You know, I didn't think I'd like Elementary, as I'm a big fan of the BBC's "Sherlock" and it's a rather obvious rip-off, BUT it is ACTUALLY pretty good. Now that I know someone else likes it I feel less shame about cheating on Cumberbatch.

I was exactly the same, expecting a cheap ripoff. But, it's actually good all on it's own.
Not as good as Sherlock, but as if it was going to be.