Keep Them Seperated: The DCCU and Arrow

Keep Them Seperated: The DCCU and Arrow

An Editorial about a first-timer's viewing of Arrow's Season 1, and their opinions after the fact.

Editorial Opinion
By OptionFour - Dec 06, 2013 04:12 AM EST
Filed Under: Green Arrow

One of the topics that has stirred things up recently here on CBM is the idea of merging the DCCU, and the universe created in the Arrow TV show. Being a large DC fan I decided to finally watch the first season of Arrow, to see what the fuss was about. If I'm a DC fan then why am I just watching it now, you ask? Simply put, I'm not a believer that superheroes can be done much justice in the television format; perhaps, I thought, with HBO or AMC behind them it would be possible, but not with The CW.

After making it through the first season of the show, I certainly have not changed my mind. I think merging these two universes would be a poor idea at best, and though I've never written anything for CBM before I've decided to share my thoughts on why that is. Herein I'll demonstrate why merging the two versions of the DC universe is not only a bad idea, but also why the Arrow show is a poor man's representation of the Green Arrow character.


'Green Arrow' or 'The Vigilante'?

I'll preface this by saying I'm not the largest Green Arrow fan to start with, but I am familiar with the character, and own some of his comics. To me he has always been defined by his grit, humour in the face of danger, and a rare kind of self-awareness that maybe dressing up in a green feathered hat and shooting arrows at people is a touch silly. Another defining trait are his trick arrows, which are also often on the silly side, though this helps him remain a hero of fairly non-lethal methods. I also tend to think of his inclination towards leftist political notions as defining some of his more recent material.

So where are these traits in the television show?
Instead of a good humoured, though gritty, philanthropist playboy who heavily favours leftist politics and non-lethal attacks? We've ended up with a sort of brooding, anti-social, angsty mass-murderer.
This is one of my largest points of contention with the show: why is he killing so many people? Green Arrow-- sorry, The Vigilante, is often seen murdering people just for having seen them stand beside someone he thinks is a criminal. I don't understand how it is that so many DC fans get upset when Superman is seen to break one neck (that of a man who has just destroyed a portion of Metropolis, vowed to kill all humans on earth, and held the world hostage), but cry for joy to watch The Vigilante murder at least fifty people in the single season of the show that I watched; often these were people who he had absolutely no evidence of them having done wrong. We're expected to accept them as your average television mook - stands beside the bad guy, and gets shot. That would be at least semi-kosher if this were a cop drama, but the casual, wanton, and frankly constant murder is just awful for a supposed superhero.
In addition to this, how is it that every single one of The Vigilante's arrows always kills his victim in a single shot? If you're going to have him firing regular old broadhead arrows straight into criminals, shouldn't they do things like scream, and bleed, and take a little while to die? I know, I know - you're not going to see that in a relatively family friendly show. But then maybe they just shouldn't have him murder so many folks in the first place.
That's not to say we haven't seen Trick Arrows - we have, kind of; explosive arrows, and arrows with voice recorders built into them, largely. At least its some kind of concession to the character's roots.

Another large issue for me is that if you simply swapped a few character names, I would never even know this was about the Green Arrow character. He is never referred to as such, instead using the same cop-out that Smallville did years earlier; for them, Superman became 'The Blur'. As though nothing at all were learned from how incredibly lame it was last time they did it, they're now giving us Green Arrow as 'The Vigilante', or 'The Hood'.
The angsty, childish Oliver Queen/The Hood character featured in the Arrow television show is actually nothing at all like the comibcook hero he is supposed to be based on.

One last note on this topic before I move on. Why is it that Oliver Queen demonstrates so many super powers in the first season? Chief among them are his ability to run directly toward men who are firing guns at him without getting hit by them, and his ability to simply 'be as tough as the plot demands he be'. In episode 21, for instance, he gets into a scuffle and one thug breaks a pool cue straight over his chest. Oliver Queen simply looks him right in the eyes as he's doing it, and doesn't even blink. I understand that he's supposed to be tough, but from a writing perspective that kind of quality only exists in context. When you have characters do things like this it foils the context, and makes it seem unrealistic instead of simply badass.


Keep 'em Seperated

Let's get one thing out of the way quickly before I continue with my list of reasons why these two fictions should be kept seperate. A lot of the time we hear this argument of "it will be confusing to viewers if they aren't merged". I never want to hear this again. Its not confusing, not even slightly, not even to non-comicbook fans. The people watching this show are not trained chimps - they can think, and reason just fine. We're not stupid.
Not to mention that we've had a half-dozen 'Batman' actors now, we have had Captain America and the Human Torch played by the same man, and we've worked our way through Spiderman's Origin twice, with completey different casts. No one - not a single person - is confused by this. I've never heard anyone mention it anywhere, ever . . . aside from some commenters on this site who claim it happens all the time.
That said, do you know what would be confusing?
If people had to watch Arrow in order to understand what's going on in the DCCU. For instance, if they show . . . oh, I don't know, the origin of The Flash in Arrow. And then he just shows up in the DCCU movies, without so much as a how-do-you-do, as though everyone should already know what his deal is. See . . . not many people actually watch Arrow. Everyone I know has seen Man of Steel but when I told people I was watching the first season of Arrow, their response was often either "You're watching what?" or simply to ask me "why?"
Even if you disagree with everything I say in this editorial, it won't change the numbers. The Arrow show isn't watched by enough people to let it carry any clout in the cinematic universe. And even if they did merge? I wouldn't watch the second season of the show.

One thing that fans love about the Arrow series are the cameos from other DC characters. And in context they are one of the brightest parts of the show. Moving them in as an official part of the DCCU would be a mistake though. The frankly butchered origin stories we're getting for Huntress, Roy Harper, 'Speedy', and the small host of weekly villains that show up in the first season are amusing, but not at all true to the source material, or sometimes even the spirit of the characters. With DC talking about commiting to doing a series of lower budget films based on less-known characters, do we really want characters like Deadshot, Deathstroke, Huntress, Speedy, and even the Green Arrow himself out of the running for those?
And they would be out of the running. Because no film director, even a low budget one, is going to want to stake his reputation on what are largely television level actors, who simiply aren't good enough to make the transition to the silver screen. (Stephen Amell is the exception. I find him merely adequate as Arrow, but he has some good works in his past)

And lastly, most movie watchers and comic fans accept an unrealistic level of fortitude and skill in the Batman character we get in movies. This is largely done simply because it is Batman, and people are willing to invest in the fact that he can be exagerated. That's the only reason it makes any sense at all for him to be sharing screen time with the powerhouse version of Superman that we were given in Man of Steel.
But what about Green Arrow?
If he, Batfleck, and Cavill's Superman were sharing a film then what would The Vigilante/Hood bring to the table? What does he add besides an awkward man-squeal from fans of the show?
Some day I'd like to see a Green Arrow film that does the character justice, so that the above question can actually be answered with something more than a helpless shrug. But for now its best to keep these two universes seperate.

REBEL MOON Star Charlie Hunnam Confirms He Turned Down GREEN ARROW Role - And Reveals Why!
Related:

REBEL MOON Star Charlie Hunnam Confirms He Turned Down GREEN ARROW Role - And Reveals Why!

GREEN ARROW: Kyle Gallner Pitches James Gunn On Casting Him As Oliver Queen In The DCU
Recommended For You:

GREEN ARROW: Kyle Gallner Pitches James Gunn On Casting Him As Oliver Queen In The DCU

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

OptionFour
OptionFour - 12/6/2013, 4:59 AM
If they're in the same universe but never share screentime, what does that accomplish besides making sure we'll never see a proper big screen adaptation of Green Arrow?
avo
avo - 12/6/2013, 5:52 AM
The tones of the show and the movie are so different that it would never work. The show is all drama and character-driven plot while Man of Steel was entirely a story-driven plot. They could never work on screen.
DeathstrokeTerminator
DeathstrokeTerminator - 12/6/2013, 6:00 AM
Keep them sepereated? [frick] that! MERGE!
Alphadog
Alphadog - 12/6/2013, 6:27 AM
Your telling me that they shouldn't merge because you didn't like the first season when most fans are saying the opposite because of the second season. I like the way their evolving the character and I enjoy a lot of the intrepertations of the characters during the second season. Black Canary for example is a character that they adapted quite well with the whole trained by the League of Assassins thing. Count Vertigo on another hand was very badly adapted. He should of been a business man and a prince that uses this sonic weapon similar to Obadiah Stane in Iron man and Black canary in this tv show. Also, Mos changed the characters almost as much as Arrow. (With most of the characters not all)
DatNerdyKid
DatNerdyKid - 12/6/2013, 7:25 AM
I love 'Arrow'. I really really do. It's even better in it's second season.
I love 'Man of Steel'. I am really loving the direction they seem to be going in for the sequel and the evolving DCCU.
But I do not believe they should merge, AT ALL. These TV-quality (not questioning their acting skills) actors wouldn't stand a chance up against Cavill or Affleck. Do I want Grant Gustin as my Filmverse Flash? NO. He doesn't fit the bill for me. This is the main problem with 'Arrow'-it has taken DC characters to use for its own narrative, and despite said narrative being BRILLIANT, we result in bastardised versions of the characters we know and love. And I do not want them on film.
OptionFour said it best-"That said, do you know what would be confusing? If people had to watch Arrow in order to understand what's going on in the DCCU." With said bastardised characters showing up in the DCCU films, to know their backstory people would need to watch 'Arrow'. While this may be a brilliant moneymaking scheme for the CW and WB, it ultimately serves to aggravate the casual moviegoer. The rest of the DCCU would become DEPENDANT on 'Arrow', while 'Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.' is in fact SUPPLEMENTARY to the MCU-it fills in gaps and ties up plots while having its OWN story.
Peace y'all (not even Southern)
DatNerdyKid
DatNerdyKid - 12/6/2013, 7:33 AM
I hated 'The Avengers'.
*imitates Bane* "Let the flamewar begin!"
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 12/6/2013, 8:07 AM
Cavill isn't exactly a skilled actor. He's a body-builder, definitely easy on the eyes, and he looks just like Superman's supposed to...

But if you've seen him in anything else... yeah.
Stephen Amell could be just fine. My problem would be - could he get by alone, or would he have to bring Dig and Felicity to the JLA?
BlackIceJoe
BlackIceJoe - 12/6/2013, 8:50 AM
Dude really well thought out editorial. I so don't understand why people want the movies and the tv shows connected. The big one it gives less room for either the movies or the tv shows to grow. Because you have to make sure that this works with the other movie or show.
OptionFour
OptionFour - 12/6/2013, 1:37 PM
@Gliderman,
You can say that people don't need to watch the previous MCU movies to enjoy The Avengers, but its somewhat untrue. If someone genuinely wasn't familiar with any of the characters - had no idea who Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America even are - they would have no clue what's going on in the Avengers. Sure, they might still like it purely as a series of special FX and jokes from RDJ, but that's not really the movie, is it?


Thanks to those who agree and/or offered compliments, though! It is encouragement to write more in the future. I'd really love to hear a well-reasoned rebuttal from someone who disagrees with me though. Something more than "I want it to happen, so it should" would be great.
OptionFour
OptionFour - 12/6/2013, 2:03 PM
@TheAwesomeAvenger456,

Well said. That's a much more concise way to phrase it. With The Flash being introduced in Arrow, it would be necessary to watch it in order to understand what's going on in the DCCU.
The Marvel SHIELD show is supplementary, however - its not like they used it to introduce Thor, or Iron Man for the first time. They are minor characters doing largely minor things.
Lhornbk
Lhornbk - 12/6/2013, 3:28 PM
Okay, first of all, thank goodness they haven't (at least so far) given this version of Green Arrow all those silly, leftwing hippie political views of the comic Green Arrow. Enough characters on TV and in movies already spout that nonsense. Hopefully, they keep him the way he is now.

Next, this idea that "TV" actors are automatically unworthy to portray the same characters in movies, alongside "movie" actors, is utter nonsense. A good actor is a good actor, whether he is on TV or in a movie. And a bad actor is a bad actor, whether he's in movies or on TV. You think Tom Selleck can't make it in a movie? Wrong, he has been in movies that did very well. Look at all the movie actors who are deciding to do TV now. Gary Sinise, Kiefer Sutherland, just to name two. From what I saw Wednesday, Grant would be fine as Flash in a movie. If you want to argue that he's not a good actor, that's fine. But just throwing out that it's because he's a "TV" actor is just stupid.

Finally, once again, I am so, so, so tired of fanboys whining about changing source material, "bastardizing" characters, etc. Just shut up already! You don't own these characters. Most general audiences don't know these characters that well, and if changes need to be made to make the characters more appealing, more relatable, more enjoyable for the majority of the audience, that's fine. About the only time I would get upset would be if they changed a fundamental characteristic of the hero (for example, took away Superman's ability to fly, or had him be from Venus.) Now, Oliver's political views might be considered fundamental, but I consider that change to be an improvement, and a show about him whining about the war in Afghanistan or something would be boring (and stupid.) To me, changing his bow to a gun would be going over the line, or having him just learning his skills in school or in training instead of being marooned on an island. As for the killing, that is being explained by the flashbacks, and he has now changed tactics with a reasonable explanation as to why. (and thankfully, they are keeping the trick arrows realistic instead of silly, like the boxing glove arrow.)
CCR
CCR - 12/6/2013, 6:05 PM
Arrow is like the "Batman Begins" of Green Arrow. He isn't Green Arrow yet, he's becoming him. Slowly. It's a tv show so they're taking their time. And imho, the show gets better with every episode. And many agree.

I see what you're saying by the CW's audience being limited. That is a good point. I encourage you to catch up on the second season, even though you didn't seem to care for the first. But for those who DO like the show it seems really a huge waste to NOT incorporate it into the DCCU. Because we think it's that damn good! Lol. Anyways, good editorial.
DatNerdyKid
DatNerdyKid - 12/6/2013, 6:13 PM
@Lhornbk
I am not doubting the acting ability of the actors on 'Arrow'. I am merely stating that their lack of experience in well-publicised TV shows etc. These are actors whose names (bar possible John Barrowman-love Captain Jack!) are barely recognisable beyond the fanbase of the show.
My point with the 'bastardisations' of characters is that the show is throwing in character after character from the comic books to serve its own narrative. While we do love to see these characters, and elements of their comic-book selves are indeed present, they are fundamentally compromised to service the show and inexplicably tied to OLIVER QUEEN.
Let's take Deathstroke. In 'Arrow', he is essentially Oliver's own Ra's Al Ghul (referring to his portrayal in 'Batman Begins' of course)-a mentor to our hero in his time of exile who will, inevitably turn on him. He's Australian (yay!), NOT old, NOT a Vietnam veteran, and NOT possessing a link to the Teen Titans that has made him so famous in the comics. There's even a bit of two-face thrown in there. Would you really prefer to see Manu Bennett, who is without doubt an impeccable actor, portraying this version of the character on screen in a fight with say...Ben Affleck's Batman, or would you like to see the oft-fancasted Stephen Lang/Ron Perlman take on the role, cutting into the hearts (figuratively of course) of a Teen Titans-esque group of young heroes?
'Arrow' should be a TESTING GROUND for the DCCU-see how the characters are received on TV before planting them on film. See how they are received while implementing them into their own stories. It's working for the Flash after all.
OptionFour
OptionFour - 12/6/2013, 7:36 PM
@Lhornbk,
I agree, there are actors who can do both television and films gracefully. Let me clarify that what I meant isn't that I think they could never do films just because they've done television. I meant to imply that their level of skill is appropriate to a television show, but that they aren't good enough actors to make it in movies. There are a few exceptions to this, of course. Stephen Amell is a talented guy even if Arrow doesn't really showcase his full abilities, and I enjoyed Manu Bennett's performance, even if his character was nothing at all like Deathstroke.

I don't mind them messing about with Ollie's political views too much. It would be a little weird if they purposefully shoved him in the opposite direction instead, but to my recollection he never really expressed a political view of any kind.

Also, to my mind? Turning a character that has always favoured non-lethal solutions into a remorseless mass murderer is absolutely, unequivocally changing what you called a fundamental element of the character. People absolutely went nuts when Superman killed one person because a character's beliefs about violence in a situation that revolves around law, morality, and violence are fundamental.
Making Oliver Queen into someone who kills people and doesn't even flinch at it is a huge, tremendous change. And frankly it makes him closer to a character like the Punisher, where its often times debatable if they're even a hero or a villain.
CCR
CCR - 12/6/2013, 7:53 PM
Plus we don't know the full extent of his motivations to kill from his father's book, there's plenty more island-time to see in future seasons.

I have no problem with them changing certain details from the comics, it's much more important to me that they produce an involving story with good characters, and like I just said, we don't know yet all that happened on the island.
OptionFour
OptionFour - 12/6/2013, 8:57 PM
@CCR,
That's fair. And I'm not saying that they should stop making the show, or anything of that nature. I think its fun for what it is, and all the better to the people who truly enjoy it.

But surely you have to see why having to watch two, three, or four seasons of Arrow (in the future, obviously)in order to catch up on the story, and motivations of the character when he appears in the movies would be more than just troublesome. If someone is only watching the DCCU, and doesn't enjoy the show, they shouldn't be obligated to watch four seasons of it, nor to just accept the fact that Batman and Superman would be totally cool about working with this guy who - by that point - will have likely literally murdered hundreds.

In the long run they may well justify within the continuity of the series why it is that Oliver is so lethal in his preferences. It won't be any closer to the comicbook version of the character by doing so. And its not going to make it any easier to justify his total lawlessness to other characters in a potential Justice League.
MightyZeus
MightyZeus - 12/7/2013, 6:56 AM
I think it would be appropriate if the tv show and DC's movie universe should be kept separate.
I mean most of Batman's characters has been showcased with in the show i would just personally like to see a different cast portray each and every one of those characters in DC's movie verse.

For me personally i would like an appropriate version of Green Arrow and the same goes for The Flash.
AtomicChipmunk
AtomicChipmunk - 12/7/2013, 11:17 PM
Give the characters of Arrow a proper origin, not something related to Green Arrow.

You are as delusional as smallville fans, as long as they keep feeding you with random characters from DC comics completely unrelated to the main hero as well as toned down to fit the agenda, you will feel happy.

Ask for quality not [frick]ing quantity.

No need of Green Arrow in a Justice League movie.
View Recorder