Originally posted by Viper
Here's the thing...I could care less if Hawkgirl was in the JL comics or not. The show is good for a few laughs and is entertaining. If they had Spider-Man show up and join the team I'd watch it too.No one ever said the show has to address the comics as if it were gospel. Do you think the men who wrote the comics said "this is the way things are and that's that"? Of course not, they continued to change things around over the years and add or kill off members as they saw fit. It's art and it's entertainment...what it's not is some sort of historical documentation that has to be upheld.
Does anyone else tire of the cliche and pointless "it doesn't have to be the same as the comics" routine? This is something that doesn't need to be said. We are born knowing this. Say something worthwhile.
Part of your comment actually had a point, so I'll address it. The comics are an art form as is the TV show, but writing something off as an art form doesn't justify messing around with decades of continuity. Different art forms have different rules and functions to them. Many times, a continuing comic will have some less-than-memorable plot lines and characters, and they can get tossed out as time goes by. The good parts of a series should be reflected in new mediums that rehash the old stories. Which parts are good enough to keep-- that's for forums like this, where people can engage in the pointless intellectual exercise of figuring that out. Telling people that the TV or movies can't be the comics is a lack of thought and asks others to stop thinking. Why would you prize that over someone's complaints, which require individual thought?
I didn't know too much about the Justice League of America before the cartoon, but I knew enough to know that Hawkgirl was put there to keep sexual and racial diversity alive and well on the team. Same with John Stewart. These are extremely weak reasons to make any decision, in any situation. You can't use some intellectually stunted line like "it's different than the comics" to justify the kinds of decisions executives make in the board rooms.
The motivations for using these characters is unforgivable, but the result is satisfactory. I like Hawkgirl and for the most part, I like Stewart. His role as the stone-hard military man works great with the other members. But keep in mind, the current comic book Green Lantern is supposedly more creative and fun; they trade off different character traits by changing the character. The fans are entitled to voice their preference, and shouldn't have to suffer trite nonsense as a response.
There are serious flaws in the way these discrepancies are born. Don't hand us that flimsy excuse. It doesn't explain a damn thing.
I...me personally...I don't care if they do something different from the comic books. As long as it's entertaining they could have a plumber join the team who fights with a magical plunger for all I care.
But what I don't get is why it's such a big deal if they change things around. Really, if they make minor changes to try and make the show more entertaining or appealing to different audiences, what's the problem? It's not like the comics are some sort of religious text that has to be followed exactly. On the contrary, they often are just as flimsy with continuity as any show. The writers don't care if they break continuity...as long as it's entertaining and will sell a lot of copies. I don't see how the books somehow turned into a law that must be followed.
Let me give an example. Would you complain if they suddenly wrote off all the characters in the Justice League and replaced them with new heroes? You might say that it's against continuity and I'm sure a lot of fans would be upset. But if creative writers never did that sort of thing, the X-Men would still be Jean, Cyclops, Iceman, and Beast.
So I guess my bottom line is that we shouldn't take it all so seriously, and that in the end it's just entertainment.
Originally posted by Viper
I...me personally...I don't care if they do something different from the comic books. As long as it's entertaining they could have a plumber join the team who fights with a magical plunger for all I care.But what I don't get is why it's such a big deal if they change things around. Really, if they make minor changes to try and make the show more entertaining or appealing to different audiences, what's the problem? It's not like the comics are some sort of religious text that has to be followed exactly. On the contrary, they often are just as flimsy with continuity as any show. The writers don't care if they break continuity...as long as it's entertaining and will sell a lot of copies. I don't see how the books somehow turned into a law that must be followed.
Let me give an example. Would you complain if they suddenly wrote off all the characters in the Justice League and replaced them with new heroes? You might say that it's against continuity and I'm sure a lot of fans would be upset. But if creative writers never did that sort of thing, the X-Men would still be Jean, Cyclops, Iceman, and Beast.
So I guess my bottom line is that we shouldn't take it all so seriously, and that in the end it's just entertainment.
Plumber? You mean Super Mario is being considered for membership in the JLA?? 😱
You're right about the X-Men, but consider that the X-Men changed because the book didn't sell because people didn't like it. If the fans love the classic or mainstay or whatever characters they're petitioning they keep, then the medium in which they appear should keep those characters. For new characters, there are always guest spots with which the producers to test the waters for a new regular.
Entertainment shouldn't be a topic that breeds fanaticism, you're right. However, because the producers and creators know full well that the audience to which they cater is either very young, or very lonely, isolated and dissatisfied with the real world (not me, but some people I know 😉 ), they should give the people what they want. It may be (sniff) all they have...
Originally posted by nightcrawer89
i think the old members deid so the orig team had to get new members to help the orig.
Since LP took it upon himself to attack nightcrawer89 for this, I just thought I'd mention (a little late, I know) that nightcrawer89 is in fact correct. He's obviously referring to the Obsidion Age, when the entire JLA went back in time and were slaughtered by the JLA of that time period. As nightcrawer89 says, they were saved in part by the new JLA that Batman formed.
good job Darth.You spotted it. That was me seeing who else liks Jay'n silent bob? I had to guess it would be another DD fan. You see where DD is in J 'n SB strike back?They couldn't resist putting him in there given that they're all fans(smith, Affleck,Damon).
Good points guys.I think you might have calmed our boy LP down a little bit.
chill out guys
I think all you guys should chill out and take some things into consideration...
IF a Justice League movie is ever made (which I doubt) it'll suck ass! Trust me, I would love to see a well-done JL movie but it's nearly impossible as Warner Brothers own the characters. I mean, look at their track record...They haven't made a REALLY GOOD movie from a DC Comics character since Batman (1989). They don't have the faith in their properties like Marvel does. Notice how when a Marvel movie is made the first priority is to get the characters as close to their comic book counterparts as possible. That's to please the fan base. AFTER THAT they flesh it out and make it accessible to a wider audience. In the case of Warner Bros., the first thing they do is strip the characters of any and all semblance of their comic book origins, ultra-modernize them, stamp them with a "HIP & NOW" factor and try to please every 9 to 90 year old in the world. In the process they please no one, alienate the hardcore comic fans and guarantee that their movie will be in bargain bins within a month of release. Recent examples of this (if you follow movie development rumors)...1.) The Superman movie can't get off the ground. Why? Rewrites constantly. And none of them good. They're going to completely ignore Supes' iconic origins and try to make him "cool" again. I mean for Christ's sake....Beyonce Knowles as Lois Lane??? She can't act and hello?...she's black. Nuf said. 2.) Catwoman. Ditto for Halle Berry except in this case she's not even Selena Kyle anymore. She's some new character created by committee and demographics. Won't catch me at this movie. 3.) The Wonder Woman movie? At first I was turned off when they said Sandra Bullock was in the running. Same for Sarah Michelle Gellar (anorexic WW anyone?) And then they said they want to cast some wrestling chick. COME ON!!! Obviously this movie isn't going to be the WW we know and love from the comics but the one we know and laughed at from the 70s TV Series. YUCK! It worked in the 70s because it was the 70s. But if the executives would pay attention they would know that the reason Batman & Robin was a flop was because it was too campy! The 70s are over. Let them die. So anyway...there's a few examples of mismanagement of DC characters. SOOOO...IF a Justice League movie were made it would probably be based on the cartoon because that's what is new & hip. But it SHOULD be based on a mixture of new and old. Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash and Martian Manhunter definitely. Then I would also throw in two or three of the following... Black Canary, Green Arrow, The Atom, Hawkman, Aquaman and Plastic Man or Elongated Man. And for future installments...Zatanna, The Huntress, Fire & Ice, Firestorm, etc. As for casting, use X-Men as a model...only two or three of those actors were really on the "A-list" before the movies. For economical reasons you have to use recognizable B-listers from smaller movie roles and TV. After the success of the film they become A-listers.