MovieChat Forums > Birds of Prey Discussion > Why the Show Failed?

Why the Show Failed?


So why did this show not do so good? Where did it fail at? What would or should have been done to make this show much better?


reply

The show failed on SO MANY levels. First of all, they did away with the costumes for the most part. Much like Smallville. Also, Black Canary was only in one episode played by Lori Laughlin. There was a character named Dinah Redmond who was supposed to be her daughter. Black Canary's name was changed from Dinah Lance to Carolyn Lance. Her "Canary Cry" was more of a whistle than a scream. Huntress did not wear a mask when she went out fighting at night so anyone who saw her during the day would instantly recognize her. The villians were AWFUL. I could go on, and on, and on.

reply

The short answer to why it failed is that it was pretty terrible.

For decades, filmmakers translating comic books to film were utterly contemptuous of the source material, and their most common approach to "adapting" it was to pour on the camp. They didn't look for what made the original work--they just decided, right from the beginning, it was stupid, and made products from it that were so stupid as to be self-mocking. The INCREDIBLE HULK series on television and SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE were groundbreaking in that they represented a break from this way of doing business, but it wasn't until the best of the Marvel movies in more recent years--SPIDER-MAN, HULK, the first two X-MEN, etc.--that non-comic-fan viewers began to get a glimpse at just how much potential the source material had when treated with the proper resepect, for a change. These movies tried to make the world of their respective stories seem real, to provide a plausible environment for the more fantastic elements, to work in strong characterization that would ground the characters and allow the viewers to identify with what could otherwise be pretty extraordinary beings.

In other words, they did what the comics had done for years.

Even most of the truly awful Marvel movies of recent years--the FANTASTIC FOUR movies, DAREDEVIL, etc.--failed not because the filmmakers were contemptuous of the material, but because they simply lacked the talent to do it justice.

The camp approach was deplorable from its origin, and outlived, by decades, any possible usefulness it may have ever had. Even to call it obsolete is to give it more credit than it deserves.

Unfortunately, some still haven't gotten the message (hence the embarrassingly idiotic villain plot in BATMAN BEGINS).

BIRDS OF PREY fails because of both a contemptuous attitude toward the material and a pretty extreme shortage of talent behind the camera. I'm four episodes into it, at the moment, and, instead of trying to create a plausible environment or ground the characters and events or build around any sort of strong core concept, the series has just gotten more absurd and less coherent with each episode.

There's no effort to make the world of BIRDS plausible or to ground it in any real way, or to offer much of anything with which a viewer can identify. Helena complains, in one episode, about being ripped away from her ordinary life, but we're never given even a glimpse of what that life may be, beyond being the Huntress. By the next episode, she's strongly identifying with an apparently-massive underground "meta-human" community the creators decided to throw into the show in an effort--an embarrassingly failed one--to get an X-Men vibe going. The only thing this element succeeds in doing is taking a fantastic premise and making it even less plausible. The series' exteriors themselves are nearly all computer generated, and, by choice, are very badly rendered, making a literal cartoon out of the very world in which this is taking place.

The central villain, Harley Quinn, has been given maximum camp treatment, animating most of the action, but with no real goal or motivation that's ever made clear to the viewer. Written as an over-the-top-of-the-top caricature of camp villainy, she wants to "take over" Gotham, with absolutely no explanation as to what that means or what any of her activities do toward accomplishing it, and we're given nothing in the way of motivation except a vague desire for revenge for what Gotham did to the Joker.

For that matter, none of the central characters have any core. They, themselves, don't even understand why they do what they do. This should be a no-brainer in any project of this sort, but when Barbara Gordon tries, at one point, to explain it to Helena, she ends up offering a meaningless pile of mush about tradition. And how, exactly, do the BIRDS operate? Barbara is relentlessly insistent on the need for secrecy, and takes Helena to task for telling a cop things about their activities. Helena, at one point, lectures Dinah on the need for a dual identity, but she apparently doesn't have one herself--she operates, as the Huntress, unmasked, and walks among the "metas" as both "Helena" and "Huntress." Barbara and Dinah, likewise, turn up among the "metas" with no effort to conceal their identities.

BIRDS fails on just about every level.

reply

[deleted]

you are no longer allowed to speak, there i said it. You were complaining that TV/movies didn't follow comics yet you are bitching about Batman Begins'plot, which comes straight from the comic book Batman: Year One and is one of the best movies in the superhero genre.

All you've just succeeded in demonstrating is that you've never read a single page of Year One (which, in reality, bears virtually no resemblance to BATMAN BEGINS), and have either a) seen virtually no comic book movies, or b) have no taste at all.

reply

[deleted]

sorry, to clear that up not all of the plot comes from Year One, i forgot to mention The Long Halloween and Dark Victory. It has elements of all of these

Well, no, it doesn't, but now that we've established that you've never read a page of Year One, The Long Halloween, or Dark Victory, your admiration for BATMAN BEGINS starts to make more sense.

and is the closest any movie has been to capturing the dark comic book characterization of Batman, better than virtually any other comic book movie.

Other comic book movies tend not to focus on the "dark comic book characterization of Batman" because they aren't, in fact, about Batman. For that matter, neither is BATMAN BEGINS, but the difference there is that it makes a pretense of it. The definitive live-action Batman remains the original Burton film, a straight adaptation of the early years of the character.

But we're straying from the point of the thread, the reason the awful BIRDS OF PREY show failed...

reply

Actually it does, Begins is loosely based on the Wachowski's script which is a direct adaptation of YEAR ONE. The main element being, Batman as an amateur. David Goyer did borrow from The Long Halloween in terms of Falcone, gangs, etc for Act 1 of Batman Begins.

To say Batman Begins is not about Batman at all is ridiculous. The entire film is a character story on how Bruce Wayne overcomes fear, and becomes THE BATMAN. (Granted there are some liberties, for example, he never would have let Ra's Al Ghul die).

The definitive live-action Batman remains the original Burton film, a straight adaptation of the early years of the character.

The early years of the character? As for claiming Burton's film as a true adaption of Batman, albeit my favorite Batman film, is a stretch. Other than capturing the theme, the film is flawed on many levels when dealing with the Batman universe.

As for the early years of the character, Batman has been around since 1939. He was designed as an intentionally campy playboy/superhero, and Bruce Wayne didn't even have an origin story. The "definitive" version of Batman believe it or not, is Adam West's Batman of the 1960s.

Every Batman film you see today (including Burton's), are adapted from The Dark Knight series, and other contributions by Frank Miller and Alan Moore (who combined made the Joker homicidal, and gave Bruce Wayne the origin story consisting of his parent's homicide).

So before you make bold claims about someones sincerity/knowledge of a subject, take a look in the mirror.

___________________________

Arkham City Ending: Joker lives!

reply

[deleted]

Er...there are re-imaginings of Batman and different interpretations sure, but when Batman was designed by Bob Kane, that is what he was designed to be. That is the TRUE and ORIGINAL Batman, i.e. the definitive version; and remained so for a good 35 year stretch.

Now it could also be noted that Bob Kane liked the much darker depiction of Batman that came in the 80s over his original. He also went as far to draw and design a darker new Batman while he was on the set of Tim Burton's 1989 film, but nevertheless...Batman was designed to be what Adam West portrayed, and rebooted later on.

Bottom line, Kane's vision of Batman, was not the Batman we have today. Which I, like many others, as well as the games and the film industry; prefer the darker, more complex version created by Miller and Moore (The Long Halloween series - can't remember their names off the top of my head).

Now sure, because of the last 20 years of constant changes within the Batman mythos, there is arguably no definitive version. But definitive also means final or conclusive, and Kane's final take on Batman was the one West portrayed. And we should be happy for that, considering Batman was originally designed to be burgundy.

I guess a better word would have been "original."

Arkham City ending: Joker Lives!

reply

[deleted]

danbarnes86, I don't know where to begin with you. I don't think you know ANYTHING about Batman. Bob Kane's original idea for Batman was NOT like the Adam West TV series. When Batman came out in 1939, he was a very dark character. Not as dark as today, sure, but dark nonetheless. He even used guns. The Adam West TV series was based on the comics of the '50s and '60s. THOSE comics were campy. Also, Batman's return to darkness did not begin with Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. It actually began in the '70s with Dennis O'Neil and Neal Adams and CONTINUED with Frank Miller.

If you see a message from me, read my biography first before making a post. Thanks!

reply

[deleted]

Dark? I own some of the original detective comics. Batman wasn't any darker than a box full of yellow crayons. He used a gun one time and it was to kill a monster. Things he is wrong about would be the origin story, which was developed by Kane in the detective comics and perfected by Miller.

As for O'Neil and Adams yes they brought out a darker Batman, but there's a reason why The Dark Knight series overshadows their work.

_______________________________
Penny for the guy? - V

reply

[deleted]

Dark? I own some of the original detective comics. Batman wasn't any darker than a box full of yellow crayons.

I think you need to go back and read those original stories that you have. The original comics were not campy or bright. In the original stories, Batman didn't care if he injured or killed a criminal. And I said "He even used guns." I didn't say how many times. I know it was only once, but it still happened.

If you see a message from me, read my biography first before making a post. Thanks!

reply

[deleted]

Agreed, and his devotion to refusing to kill actually adds a layer of obsession/psychopathic element to Batman. For example with the Joker, it's clear that Joker cannot be rehabilitated and is a consistent threat that should be destroyed, yet Batman in all of his intelligence/uncompromising view of justice won't do it. I especially love how (the game) Arkham City addressed that about him with Talia Al Ghul having to kill Joker for him.

_______________________________
Penny for the guy? - V

reply

[deleted]

The definitive live-action Batman remains the original Burton film, a straight adaptation of the early years of the character.
Batman was already well established by this time. We don't know how long he had been operating, just that he had been. To presume that there is an actual definitive version is foolhardy. Batman '89 focuses more on the rise of Joker than it did on Batman.

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
http://athinkersblog.com/

reply

Actually long before the Spider-Man movies Sam Raimi did a movie called Darkman which was not based on a comic book, book or even a novel, he actually created a super hero for a movie starred Liam Neeson and Frances McDormand, could be why probably why he was picked to do the Spider-Man films.

Actually it would be nice to see someone develop a super hero that didn't exist except as an original concept for a movie.

As for this show whenever the corporate boys are on the set giving orders, and the writers are banned from being on the set, then you know that spells doom for any production. Plus a villain of the week story line is just weak.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

Either you can't read or you're responding to the wrong person, I never said the show was coming back and I have never tried to save a canceled television series.

If series gets canceled, that's life, I never watched the show when it broadcast on television, thewb.com website streams the entire one season of that series, and I didn't think it was a good premise to begin with, but I watched all the episodes, and they wrapped up what they needed.

Besides, Shemar Moore got a better gig on Criminal Minds, and Ian Abercrombie will always find work, he's worked more than any other actor who was on that series.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

Actually you can never say anything is ever dead and gone in Hollywood, because http://www.thewb.com also streams several series that were canceled including the original "V", I was glad to see that series canceled over 20 years ago, and now they've gone and re-booted that series along with a new version of The Witches of Eastwick called Eastwick, which was a book, a movie, and they've tried twice to make it a series, and now they've gone and have re-booted it as well. The two mini-series of "V" were excellent. The series was cheesy.

If they get a wild hair up their a$$e$, Hollywood will re-vitalize anything to make a buck, and there is always someone who thinks they can do it better.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

No one thought they would do another Batman movie after Clooney donned the cowl either.

No one said if they did another Birds of Prey it would be like the series, the movie division of WB and the television division operate independently, but the movie division made a lot of demands on the television series, that they couldn't use any major villains from the movie or comic book. There is nothing stopping the movie division from doing anything that will make them money.

I recall the first Incredible Hulk film was a failure, and then they decided to make another after saying they wouldn't. Like I said if someone thinks they can do any previous work better and it will make them money the studios will make the film.

RoboCop, Red Sonja, and He-Man, were all bad movies in the past, and RoboCop was spun off as a bad television series. All three movies are being re-made

As well as Dune, Footloose, The Shadow, Knight Rider even after the failed television series, Hellraiser, and The Warriors and that is just a few out of 40 films that are being re-made or re-booted for the next few years.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

You can put line of quote in your profile set up, it only allows so many words, and then it's permanently and automatically generated until you edit your profile. Which I'm not going to do, I'm not here to do anyone any favors. I do believe in free speech and the right for anyone to say want they want freely.


"To the fool, he who speaks wisdom will sound foolish."
"The fool wonders, the wise man asks."
"The wise man doesn't give the right answers, he poses the right questions."
"A word to the wise isn't necessary. It's the stupid ones who need the advice."

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

"To the fool, he who speaks wisdom will sound foolish."
"The fool wonders, the wise man asks."
"The wise man doesn't give the right answers, he poses the right questions."
"A word to the wise isn't necessary. It's the stupid ones who need the advice."

I stated my case with facts and only a fool would think a movie or series would never be brought back.

You're the one who said gone is gone. You mentioned Batman, and as I stated, no one thought Batman would come back after the Clooney film. They too were wrong.

I didn't care for the series, I don't care if the series came back in the future, but I'm SMART enough to know it's a POSSIBILITY, and in Hollywood anything being re-made is a POSSIBILITY.

Wasn't that Christian Bale in the Terminator re-boot/prequel? Gee? who would have thought they'd make another Terminator movie, and as television series as well.

40 plus movies all remakes of mostly bad movies. You're first statement was false to begin with, Just didn't point it out to you, because you sounded foolish saying "What is gone is gone", gee I guess not, Red Sonja was a bad movie the first time and it's being remade, in 10 year time someone will attempt another Birds of Prey, because someone who may have liked that show will want to bring it back. it happens all the time.

I pity the fool who makes false assumptions.

reply

[deleted]

I don't need to dream, I just go by Hollywood's constant history of re-making things. Time will tell, and you still haven't shown me anything to support why someone wouldn't come along with another version.

If I'm not mistaken that's exactly what they did with the Batman re-boot, let's see someone liked Batman, they decided to take a different approach from the previous films, approached WB to back the film.

Fool, Get real! This is what they do in Hollywood! all the time because they don't have original ideas if they did there wouldn't be 40 plus re-makes being made, what rock have you been living under, or does one need to fall on your head in order for you to see the light.

One network has two series that are re-makes, done 10 and 20 years ago. The studios have even admitted that they have a vault of product that can be re-made.

Those who seek to predict the future might first look to the past. The past is a mirror, and those who ignore its sometimes dark reflection, are doomed to repeat it.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

Why because you look like fool, history repeats itself.

Who said anything about anyone with the show, if I'm not mistaken the Batman re-boot had absolutely nothing to do with ANYONE from the previous films except the studio, and they only decided to back it after they saw a script.

You don't know what anyone is writing, all the unknown writers and directors who have their own take on how a story should be told could and will be working on something maybe even a version of Birds of Prey.

Words you should learn to live by: Those who seek to predict the future might first look to the past. The past is a mirror, and those who ignore its sometimes dark reflection, are doomed to repeat it.

Everything that is old is new again to someone who hasn't seen it. Stop replying with your weak arguments, if you want to give it a rest. You look foolish, they re-make everything eventually and that's a fact fool.

"To the fool, he who speaks wisdom will sound foolish."
"The fool wonders, the wise man asks."
"The wise man doesn't give the right answers, he poses the right questions."
"A word to the wise isn't necessary. It's the stupid ones who need the advice."

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

Now you really just look down right foolish! It's 2009, and Birds of Prey went off the air during the 2002-2003 season, a decade is 10 years, 6 years is not a decade. Exactly how would you know what every writer is currently working on or is going to be working on, if history is any indicator 10 years is about the time frame these re-makes are brought back minimum.

Batman and Robin aka Batman 4 was released in 1997, Batman Begins was released in 2005 which is only 8 years, after WB said there would be no more Batman movies.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

I'm not saying anything foolish, let's see Wonder Woman was a television series that was canceled over 30 years ago, and they're going to re-make that into a movie someday.

Superman, Superboy, they've brought both versions of that character back in television and film. What is it that you don't get. Smallville is a re-imagined Superboy. Lois and Clark was just an updated version of Superman for television.

You sound foolish because you say it will never happen yet again HISTORY is not your side of the argument. THAT'S WHY YOU SOUND FOOLISH!!!!

I look at history and see possibilities for it repeating with the same mistakes sometimes being made, you're a closed minded fool, who refuses to see that history always repeats itself.

That and the fact that they're a lot of re-makes, FAME comes out this month, a re-make from a movie, and even a two television series.

Mankind will be forever doomed to destruction if we continue to ask for the the truth but then refuse to listen.

Hollywood history has already shown it will make and re-make because it can. Why would they put any effort into something original when you can constantly make comic books, novels, and now video games into live action movies?

It may not be called Birds of Prey, it could be called something entirely different much like Smallvile, Lois and Clark, both those series are still about Superboy and Superman, I don't see anything in those titles suggesting anything about Superboy or Superman.

If they did a movie called it Batgirl or Batwoman and put the Black Canary, and the Huntress characters in it like they are in the the comic book, what would that still be about for all intensive purposes? "The wise man doesn't give the right answers, he poses the right questions."

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

Your right because you're a nobody, a nobody who constantly replies to post with nothing to substantiate your point of view.

Nobody is more dangerous than he who imagines himself pure in heart, for his purity, by definition, is unassailable.

Wise men profit more from fools than fools from wise men; for the wise men shun the mistakes of fools, but fools do not imitate the successes of the wise.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

You're the one that said he was a NOBODY, if the shoe fits, then it's your mouth that it went into not mine. Ranting I think not, I can't help it if you have such limited vocabulary of words and can't complete a sentence, and proof to offer on the basis of your assumptions.

I'm Nobody! Who are you?, Are you -- Nobody -- too?

A theory is something nobody believes, except the person who made it.

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

The truth is the creator and writers diverged from the comic, and if they had wanted to re-envision the series, they should have just used the regular Huntress, Black Canary, Oracle, and set it in Platinum Flats, California just like the comic, and created new villains (They were barred from using any major villains or heroes) nixed the meta-human story line altogether, and it wouldn't infringed the corporate guys in any of the WB divisions who were all at odds with each other.


Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

If I'm not mistaken you said NOBODY was interested in what I was saying.

Unless your talking about your self in the third person.

I would have said I'm not interested in what your saying.

When you say nobody you would have to be speaking about yourself and no one else, do you know nothing of possessive nouns? I have directed my comments directly at you, the fool that speaks about himself as NOBODY. For thou art the foolish troll of all things BATMAN.

“Fools live to regret their words, wise men to regret their silence”

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

You're the troll that first replied to me. You troll about a lot.

Don't start something you can't finish.

If one is estranged from oneself, then one is estranged from others too. If one is out of touch with oneself, then one cannot touch others.

The truth hurts, and if you has said anything truthful say I would be hurt, you haven't so I'm not. You couldn't even substantiate your position of an assumption with one fact to back it up.

Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

I said Hollywood remakes everything, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, you obviously can't read as I stated earlier troll, there were people who liked this show, just like all the guys who liked the original Batman television series, or even Knight Rider and when they got older they wanted to bring those series back and remake them.

The future writers are either writing, conceptualizing, and imagining. The truth will be provided when they write it, and history in Hollywood says they will. I guess for a short view thinker this a concept they can't grasp. I'm a long view thinker.

Jon Favreau grew up reading Iron Man, and he wanted to do an Iron Man movie, and he got his opportunity. The same way George Lucas and Steven Spielberg watch black and white serials growing up, and wanted to do a story like that, and we got Indiana Jones. I smart enough to realize that some young person will come along and re-make this story.

People with limited imagination, are the only ones who can never see a future of possibilities. Again, to be redundant, Batman Forever was supposed to be the last, and someone got imaginative and re-made the Dark Knight. You are knave and very naive to believe this will not come to pass. My proof is history.

And yours would be that you just didn't like the series, and are so limited in your imagination, that you can't see possibilities. Batman will not run forever as a franchise in movies, these things are cyclical, and as I stated before, there was an 8 year hiatus of any Batman films except the animated versions.

You can take solace to believe want you want, in Hollywood nothing stays gone forever. When the WB movie division, made demands that NO MAJOR VILLIANS FROM BATMAN COULD BE USED it limited the show. There are people working on ideas for this show and just about any film or television series that has been made, and they had nothing to do with any of those previous projects.

Christopher Nolan was 25 when Batman Forever came out, it took 8 years to get Batman Begins there were people who want to bring back Batman but the studio didn't like the scripts and story lines that were submitted. He was just a guy who wanted to do a Batman story because he was a fan of Batman, just like there is some kid who was a fan of this show and will want to re-make it, in a way they thought it should have been done.

Nolan didn't use CGI like most comic book movies, because he doesn't like it, and that was his vision, another director could have easily been tapped to do the film and gone in a different direction, much like Tim Burton did with Planet of the Apes, he went a different direction with his film, but he grew up watching The Planet of the Apes films and decided to do one. Some kid will do the same thing with this title someday. They'll do it differently.

Very often, say what you will, a knave is only a fool.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

No you're the idiot who doesn't care about my post, but keeps trolling around a message board of a show he claims he didn't like, you've left comments about this show all over this board, like a foolish troll.

I don't like LOST or The Office, I never been to the board to leave one comment, and if I did I wouldn't leave comments all over the board in different discussions, that's just insane.

I stated I didn't like shows premise and concept, I'm not leaving TROLL like comments all over "The Birds of Prey" message board.

You're using Wikipedia as a source? Come on dig a little deeper. Anyone can edit that site and put made up things on it. It's why actors, musicians, and politicians are now starting either hire someone or in some case contract with a company that does noting but edit and remove wrong information on Wikipedia.
I could see if you pulled it from a newspaper, then I would say I made a mistake.

I found two different sources that contradict "THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FOOLS"

He's stated he didn't like CGI in at least two different interviews.



http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-07/ff_darknight

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/story/batman-begins-stays-away-from-cgi

He said he doesn't like CGI, and doesn't like to use the technology in his films.

Only a foolish troll would constantly keep comments on just about every message thread, criticizing movie he claims he didn't like.

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

TROLL SOMEWHERE ELSE, PLEASE!! or go edit a Wikipedia page.


Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

I didn't say anything about him lying, that's what he said in two different interviews, the links won't allow hot-linking from another site. I tried them without the markup text, and they worked just fine.

You have to copy and paste. I even found a two more where he's giving an interview about his movie "The Prestige"

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-07/ff_darknight

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/story/batman-begins-stays-away-from-cgi

http://www.complex.com/CELEBRITIES/Complex-Men/Christopher-Nolan

Excerpted from complex.com interview with Chris Connolly

Chris Connolly: Is that why you avoid using computer effects?

Christopher Nolan: There's a difference in how people perceive things that are animated and things that are real. So much of the appearance of objects is serendipity, the extraordinarily complex, chaotic interactions of light and texture. Even when you have a computer providing texture mapping there's a degree of accident to the appearance of objects that cannot be recreated.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/08/26/rumor-chris-nolan-wants-to-shoot-batman-3-entirely-in-imax/

If you do a search you'll come of up with a lot of links where he's quite proud of the fact that he isn't dependent on the use of CGI he's stated he prefers real special effects to CGI, I think movies were made just fine before CGI, and before CGI they would have used a real ship for Pirates of the Caribbean.

I just watched "The Golden Voyage of Sinbad" and except for Ray Harryhausen's stop motion effects they filmed on a real ship in Spain. I remember seeing the movie when it was released in 1974 and except for some slight flaws that don't distract from the movie, it's very well made for a low budget film from the 70's. The actors are clearly doing their own stunts in the fighting sequences.

Some of the things they have characters do with CGI just aren't possible in the real world, It's why the three Bourne movies are better that the latest James Bond films where they clearly mix CGI effects with special effects. Although the last Bond film stayed away from a lot of the CGI, clearly because they saw how well a regular cat and mouse thriller can be done with out them.

The CGI in "The Birds of Prey" didn't help the series either.

[red]A fool will curse the darkness, where a wise man will light a candle.[

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

Again where did I say that, he gave interviews and he stated it. It's all there in black and white, contact him and ask him or his representatives to explain why he said what he said, when you do a search, and many articles come up with him talking about his dislike of CGI.

You kepp saying I said maybe you can't read. Again his words not mine, I don't know what you're problem is but if you read any of the articles, he clearly stats "HIS" position.

I don't have to explain anything and you're calling me an idiot, asking me to explain the actions of another person I've never met. Only a real idiot would assume to answer question for someone else.

I copied an excerpt from an interview Mr. Nolan gave and he CLEARLY STATES, HIS POV ON CGI".

The one the articles even had reader comments at the bottom and even some of the comments talk about Mr. Nolan's interview, and his POV on CGI.

THE complex.com interview is very self explanatory to someone who can read, he asked the question by Chris Connolly: Is that why you avoid using computer effects?, and he gives his answer which I posted earlier.

Another link clearly stating questions you can follow along with the interviewer, since you like so many other people obviously don't know how to do research, this is why Wikipedia IS TRULY THE FOOLS ENCYCLOPEDIA! the one stop spot for people to lazy to verify anything.

http://movies.about.com/od/batman/a/batmancn060805.htm

I advise that if you aren't satisfied with what Mr. Nolan says about "NOT LIKING CGI" Take it up with Mr. Nolan, maybe he'll talk slowly while explains it to like has in the many articles where he states his POV.

Nolan on the Decision to Keep Things as Real as Possible: “I just feel like…I mean that this sort of big blockbuster films I’ve been seeing the last 10 years or so have become smaller and smaller, and more and more like animation films or video games and all this. And I just wanted to make an attempt to get back to the kind of grand scale film making that I’d enjoyed watching when I was a kid.”AGAIN HIS WORDS NOT MINE, TAKE IT UP WITH MR.NOLAN"

This is what Trolls do, sit in a room or their mother's basement coming to conclusions with Wikipedia as their source for information, and coming up with GARBAGE

Definition of Internet Troll and Online Trolling

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, absurd, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others. Trolls can also be existing members of such a community that rarely post and often contribute no useful information to the thread, but instead make argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person, more often than not based on what they thought was said rather than what was actually said by the other person, concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation.

Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction. ~ Albert Einstein

Mr. Nolan gets that quote, and at some point in time in the future someone will re-envision "Birds of Prey" without all the restraints that made it fail.

reply

[deleted]

The troll runs away, defeated by his own foolishness, by being exposed as a TROLL.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

You brought the insults on yourself, what happened to that ignore list troll, and you won't find any post by me all over the "Birds of Prey" message board, read the definition of a troll, and that's exactly what you do on this board. TROLL!

If I told someone I was going to ignore them I would be MAN enough to keep my word, but I don't do girlish things like that, if you've got something to say to me, I'll respond back. MAN up TROLL BOY! Unlike you what ever I have to say, I'll say on the internet or to a person's face, and I don't care if they ignore me. Just shows how weak they are when they can take the truth when someone points it out to them. Seeing as how you're some what limited in vocabulary hence using the FOOLS ENCYCLOPEDIA for reference, and obviously didn't read any of Mr. Nolan's interviews about not liking CGI. I don't know maybe you can't read well. Oh, the prose of those who use Wikipedia. LIMITED!

You're a troll on the "Birds of Prey" message boards, and that's the absolute truth, I see your user name on almost every message thread concerning this show.

If you didn't like the show so much, why do you spend so much time trolling it's message boards? Because you're a TROLL. I given you ample opportunity to show me where Mr. Nolan says he likes CGI, but you haven't, you ask me to explain, what Mr. Nolan has clearly stated in interviews.

Philosophy would solidly be established, if men would more carefully distinguish those things that they know from those that they ignore. ~ Boyle.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

I'm not the fool who said they were ignoring me, keep making yourself look stupid, you're a TROLL of course I don't think this is only message board you TROLL.

Ask yourself a question if you can fool, you don't like the show but you POST in this message board, more than the people who did like the show. That's a TROLL, i haven't post anywhere in the "Birds of Prey" message board except this thread.

I was reading several different threads on the "Birds of Prey" message board and there you are TROLLING away.

Like I said for someone who "DIDN'T LIKE" like "Birds of Prey" you post on their message boards and leave TROLL like comments.

A TROLL that can't keep his word, typical TROLL quality.

With patient angle trolls the finny deep.

A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

You have post all over the "Birds of Prey" message board moron it doesn't if you TROLL other boards that what TROLLS go to any board and leave TROLL messages everywhere, you're TROLL be all you can as a TROLL.

You constantly insist you dislike the show, "WHY SO MANY POST" on a message board for a show you DON'T like think about FOOLISH TROLL!, If you didn't like the show you wouldn't TROLL to it's message boards every time you see someone post on it's message board. The failure to comprehend your actions as that of a TROLL makes you your own FOOL.

Didn't you say gone is gone, yet on several "Birds of Prey" threads there you are the TROLL.

You say you're going to ignore me, but true to TROLL form you unceasingly keep coming back with your limited TROLL vocabulary.

The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

Yet here you are again! TROLLING! You can barely write, and you definitely can't read or comprehend anything I tell you.

Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

In fact, to gull a fool seems to me an exploit worthy of a witty man.

Never give a quarter, never give an inch.

You're the TROLL who first responded to me, like I said you TROLL "Birds of Prey" message board and leave messages to everyone that leaves a new message, you are TROLLING.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

It is the part of a fool to give advice to others and not himself to be on his guard.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

Why do you keep writing if you enabled your ignore option then you shouldn't see any of my messages, which means you are a man who goes back on his word.

No man is so much a fool as not to have wit enough sometimes to be a knave; nor any so cunning a knave as not to have the weakness sometimes to play the fool.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

Then stop sending me messages, you said you were going to block my messages then you should man up and do what you said. I see no need to forget or forgive anything. I always stand by my word. Ignore me, I don't care I post because it's a free country and I'm allowed to so, I don't go around to message boards posting obscure TROLL comments to people.

Don't pick a fight, if you're afraid to get hit.

A fool must now and then be right, by chance.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

reply

[deleted]

jriddle73 -
you just saved me many long hours of debating on/ posting to about
a dozen message boards or so, with this concise explanation.
Treally now. <not sarcasm> cheers, mate ~

reply

"
Even most of the truly awful Marvel movies of recent years--the FANTASTIC FOUR movies, DAREDEVIL, etc.--failed not because the filmmakers were contemptuous of the material, but because they simply lacked the talent to do it justice. "

The Fantastic Four and Daredevil were both great movies.

-BM

reply

One of the big mistakes they made was connecting Batman to the story. That turned off Batman fans. Because it was quite clear that Batman was never gonna show up on this show.

They should made Helena her own character.

reply

It is extremely interesting to go back in time to see how shortsighted people were back then...

We now have a TV show called Gotham, they make no bones about being "connected" to Batman, and it has been made quite clear that Batman will never show up in this series, it is doing amazingly well...

reply

In short, it failed to live up to the source material, had no real credible logic, plot or character development and could've been much better executed.

reply

Absolutely, I personally just found out about this show and am now watching it, but wow it is really hard to stay focused on it. The acting is not very good (I think they went for good looks rather than talent), and I agree that Harley Quin's desire to take over New Gotham is ridiculous! Who cares? What can one city do?

"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” J. Calvin

reply

It failed because most fans critique a show or movie based on comics on the criteria that if it is not exactly how they envisioned it, it's bad. Here was a show that found a balance between the mythical quality of comics and the need for a TV show to feel physical, and succeeded quite well. It was full of very good performers who breathed life into potentially unbelievable characters. They did the fans the credit of taking the roles seriously. All the characters were trying to find something hopeful to reach for out of their separate dark places, a feeling matched visually by the series' earth tones, not too dark or too bright, and this struggle was quite touching and beautiful at times. They didn't just set up a villain and have Helena go kick his/her ass, the characters would have emotional arcs within an episode. It was one of the more sophisticated live action series based on comics, but because not everything matched comic lore perfectly, people decided it was terrible.

reply

Batman Begins is indeed one of the best comic book turn movie , and maybe only the sequel beat it...

Tim Burton's movie...lol it wasen't bad, i enjoyed it...AS A KID... That was meant for that, a movie about a superhero for kid, i mean he is not dark at all, the Joker barely kill a couple of peoples, compare to the counter part of TDK that his awesome in every aspect. Seriously the way they restarted it in Begins is just what they had to do and it worked perfectly.

reply

[deleted]

Unfortunately, this is a show that probably would have improved or became more interesting in time, as more mythical Batman characters came into the show. I think Poison Ivy certainly would have shown up had the show lasted more than 13 episodes. But it never gained its footing. I think another serious problem other than those already mentioned above is that it was probably being compared to Smallville, which had an amazing first season. Birds of Prey really doesn't compare to Smallville, though I still thought it was an interesting show. I think worse shows have lasted much longer. I would watch Birds of Prey over Friends any day of the week.

reply

[deleted]

I've been trying to find out the same thing: why did it fail? So far in this board thread, I've read nothing convincing.

Not following the source material, for better or worse, rarely causes a show's failure. Example: the Birds of Prey sister show, Smallville, could not have run 8 seasons (and about to start a ninth as of this writing) if it was all about fanboy hate and poor adaptation of the original material.

Paul Levitz has gone on record as liking what was done with the characters (he co-created The Huntress for the comics back in the '70's, BTW). The actors were all fine, and most have continued to get leading roles in TV and film, so I have to disagree with the 'bad acting' thing.

I think it simply wasn't given time - like so many shows now - to find an audience. But I'd still like to know the whole story.



This matter is best disposed of from a great height, over water.

reply

[deleted]

Thanks, vwisniewski, for the reply!

That all makes a great deal of sense. I've had some dealings with the whole DC/Warner split of properties myself, so I can attest to how sticky it all gets.

It's sad that what I considered to be a major feature of the show (a strongly-written character found in a wheelchair-bound - certainly not 'handicapped'- hero)
turns out to be a problem in the eyes of the powers-that-be.

Again, thanks for an answer that makes perfect sense. Now I have some closure.



This matter is best disposed of from a great height, over water.

reply

[deleted]

vwisniewski is an idiot. He didn't even know about the series until not too long ago because he didn't start posting until the last year, at most.

Whatever he says is probably wrong and is not credible.

There are many reasons this show failed. First off, let me say I heavily enjoyed this series. I watched every episode from 2002 to 2003. I have bootlegs of it and I bought the official release the day it came out on DVD.

But the writing wasn't great and the acting wasn't great. (regardless of the actors getting other lead roles since then).

Shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Dead Zone, or even Lois and Clark had you really feeling for the characters. Crying when they died, fearing for their lives in heavy situations. This show just didn't do that. I loved every episode and always will, but I never felt the attachment to these characters that I felt with other shows like those mentioned above. This was mostly due to the writing, but the acting took part too.

Dina Meyer, Ian Abercrombie, Mia Sara, and Shemar Moore were all fantastic.

But two of the three Birds, Rachel Skarsten and Ashley Scott, just weren't very strong. Ashley Scott could have been better if they had really decided on how her character should act. She changed too much. Sometimes light hearted. Sometimes dark. She wasn't constant.

Skarsten's character was written even worse, and her sub-par acting didn't help. I actually started to like Skarsten's character in the last two episodes. She was a headstrong girl contributing to the team. But otherwise, she just wasn't very good.

reply

[deleted]

If the show had a set schedule from the network, it would have found it's way. I don't know if many remember how it was bounced around by the network so you had to make your best guess to view it. I think I only saw one complete episode by sheer luck. The production wasn't great and it wasn't the worst either. Most seem to agree it lacked in a number of areas.

How many shows out there have crap material and make it? The list is endless. The Huntress should have had a mask or a better wig. It was a great idea which will be remade. This discuss proves it wasn't a complete failure. Look at the number of posts; enough people are still discussing it 6 years later.

reply

[deleted]

The show ws actually really successful. With weekly ratings of 7.6 million it also had The WB's largest audience in the 18-34 demographic. There were just a lot of things going on behind the scenes. They weren't allowed to shoot high school scenes, they weren't allowed to show many of the costumes and they also couldn't use many characters from the Batman universe. Why? Everyone had a say in the storylines because many held rights to this franchise.

reply

[deleted]

the show failed because batman and catwoman are more interesting than their daughter. when i first saw the promos i was excited because at first it looked like a shoe about batman and catwoman, but it was actually about their lame daughter, huntress. i tried to give the show a chance. i actually watched most of the episodes, which sucked. apparently the ratings were bad to the db pulled the plug.

i think she show could have been better if they had better actress in the lead roles.

reply

the show failed because batman and catwoman are more interesting than their daughter.
Which is why I said they should have never connected Batman and Catwoman to the show in the first place. Let alone connect them with the main character to both of them biologically. It set the show up for disappointment.

They should have used the current Huntress from the comics. The one that is not Bruce and Selinas daughter. She would have been a way more interesting character.

i think she show could have been better if they had better actress in the lead roles.
The acting was fine. It was on the level of any CW show.

reply

[deleted]

"they could not even do the stunt work correctly so you can add poor directing to the list as well."

that is true. what i remember most about the show is the poor stunts with the obvious doubles.

on this show huntress never came across as a real fighter to me. some of the worst stunts i remember from this show where in that underground gladiatrix episode.

reply

Not directly related to the topic, but I see a lot of discussion on the accuracy of different incarnations of Batman, and the first Burton film and I can't believe I haven't read (though I haven't read EVERY post on here, granted) anyone bringing this up. BATMAN KILLS PEOPLE!!! There's a scene in it where the Batmobile is surrounded by Joker thugs and he puts a shield up, drops a bomb and kills them. With all the things people have bitched about in this thread, I can't believe noone has called bullshyte on that one.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!!!

reply

I'm almost finished watching the season and the one thing I notice is the scripts are filled with empowerment speeches for girls of Dinah's age and "real life" situations of women Helena and Barbara's ages. Maybe if they spent more time on plot and action, and less time making sure the underlying themes and agendas of the demographics were met, the show might have made it to a second season.

The camera work and lighting are good but the casting reminds me of Charmed in that the guys looked like they came from soap operas. Casting Donovan Leitch as a vengeful straight man also failed on a few levels.

I found myself bored at times but there's always a few good things in each episode, like the villain in Gladiatrix who became one with the lead door.

reply

Same reason Supergirl may or may not fail - poor writing.

reply