Author Topic: Flash/ Supergirl Crossover Enroute for March  (Read 3826 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Compound

  • Grendel's Mom
  • ***
  • Posts: 9461
  • Liked: 999
  • Happy 11th Birthday, Synch Issues!
Flash/ Supergirl Crossover Enroute for March
« on: February 03, 2016, 12:51:40 PM »
Well, according to DC  the CW's Flash and CBS's Supergirl  will be having a crossover episode in March. The episode itself will be on CBS.


I'm not sure the logistics of this, as Superman definitely exists on Supergirl and  I'm pretty sure that if one Kryptonian, let alone 2, existed in the Arrow world, it would have been mentioned. Given other episodes coming up on The Flash, I suspect that Barry's universe hopping, but we'll see in a month or two.


Offline stethacantus

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1065
  • Liked: 126
Re: Flash/ Supergirl Crossover Enroute for March
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2016, 08:34:09 PM »
There is an edict that from this point on all DC comics adapted to television will be part of the same universe. With both Flash and Arrow on CW, it was easy to have both characters cross over to each other's shows. The Arrow was suppose to cross over to Constantine on NBC, but it was cancelled just before that was to take place. Instead, Constantine made a guest appearance on Arrow. ( There is always the possibility that CW will some day pick up Constantine, but Warner would rather that the shows with more expensive visual effects be paid for by one of the other networks, which is why Supergirl ended up on CBS ). Gotham is theoretically part of the same television universe, but more likely, like Smallville, an alternative television universe. ( Smallville had an alternative version of Green Arrow and Flash. ) Currently someone else is hoarding the television rights to Batman and Superman, which is why Batman is not on Gotham, and Superman can only be shown as a blur on Supergirl. It is also why Smallville was never allowed to show Clark Kent flying, or wearing the Superman costume. They also got in trouble when they had Clark wearing a red coat and blue shirt and was being called the Red/Blue Blur, and why they changed his costume to all black. When the rights to Superman revert back to DC, expect a Superman television series. The same with the Batman rights. Also, the series i-Zombie is considered part of the television universe, but as to date there is no plans for any crossover tie-in to the other series.

The reason why Arrow never mentioned the existence of Superman was simple. They did not have the rights to the Superman character, so why bother mentioning his existence? But the Supergirl series depended on the preexistence of Superman, so we now assume the reason Superman was never mentioned was because he was in another city ( Metropolis. )

The real question here is why DC has come up with two competing universes. With Batman vs Superman there will finally be a DC Cinematic Universe that will also include Wonder Woman and will eventually lead to a Justice League movie. But with Marvel, their television shows and movies are all part of the same Marvel Cinematic Universe. This is not happening with DC. Neither the television Green Arrow nor the television Flash will be in the Justice League movie. There will instead be a different Flash and Green Arrow. Nor is the Superman from Man of Steel the same one seen as a silhouette or a blur in Supergirl.


Offline Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 28551
  • Liked: 6165
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: Flash/ Supergirl Crossover Enroute for March
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2016, 07:56:25 AM »
Currently someone else is hoarding the television rights to Batman and Superman
Who is doing that? And why, if they aren't actively making a show with those characters so not making any money off of them?



Offline stethacantus

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1065
  • Liked: 126
Re: Flash/ Supergirl Crossover Enroute for March
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2016, 10:02:09 PM »
Who is doing that? And why, if they aren't actively making a show with those characters so not making any money off of them?

This is one of the biggest problems with superheroes. A producer buys the rights with full intention of using the character. They shop the proposed movie to different studios until one agrees to produce the movie. Then they can't agree on a script, and the movie goes through years of development hell, perhaps even being dropped by one studio and picked up by another, until either the movie is finally made, or the rights finally expire. The same thing with television adaptions. A producer buys the television rights to a superhero and shops the show around to the networks. One example was with David E Kelly who bought the television rights to Wonder Woman, had NBC interested enough to order a pilot, cast Adrianne Palicki as the lead, and then had NBC deciding not to order the series after the pilot was shot. Even though David E Kelly's Wonder Woman series was dead, he continued to hold the rights, perhaps because he thought he may try again in a few years. There is never any incentive to give the rights back to DC. Once you purchase the film rights, you do not get a refund if the show you were producing goes down in flames. You probably are hoping to recoup your losses by either producing a different series with the character some time in the future, or selling the rights to the highest bidder.

 I have no idea who is currently holding the rights to Batman and Superman. I do know that in 1979 when Hanna-Barbera wanted to do a live action television series based on JLA called Legends of the Superheroes, they were unable to get the rights to Superman ( held by Ilya and Alexander Salkind who were producing the Superman films and later the series Superboy ) or Wonder Woman ( held by Douglas S Cramer who was producing the Linda Carter series at the same time ). The rights to Batman were available, and Hanna-Barbera were even able to cast Adam West and Burt Ward.

The television rights to Superman in the 90s were held by Deborah Joy LeVine who produced Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, which ended in 1997.  Smallville debuted in 2001 and ran for 10 seasons. There was a "No Tights, No Flights" rule which meant Clark could neither wear the Superman costume, nor use the power of flight. While the shows producers claimed the "No Tights, No Flights" rule was their idea, there was no excuse for that rule to extend to the final episode. In it, Clark must stop a meteor from crashing into Earth, and to do so decides that it was time to put on his Superman costume and fly for the first time. But you neither see Clark wearing the costume, nor actually flying. Even in the show's coda that takes place long after Clark became Superman, the show never shows him wearing the full costume or flying. This smacks more of the producers not having the rights to depict Clark as Superman rather than deciding not to.

Similarly, the live action Batman spin off series Birds of Prey which ran for a single season midway through Smallville's run, only showed Batman briefly in blurry flashbacks. It was explained that Batman had left Gotham. Also, almost all the other major supporting characters were missing ( including most of the villains and Commissioner Gordon ) suggesting someone else was holding the rights.

The fact that Gotham takes place a full decade before Batman suggests that the rights to the Batman character are being held by someone else, otherwise they would have produced a Batman series instead of a series based on his supporting characters. The same thing goes for Supergirl. The only excuse for Supergirl getting a series and not the more popular Superman would be if the rights were being held up. The fact that Superman's two appearances on the series had him either in silhouette, or as a blur flashing past the screen, seems to confirm this. 


Offline RoninFox

  • Gryffindork
  • ******
  • Posts: 14021
  • Liked: 2386
    • Ronin Fox Trax
Re: Flash/ Supergirl Crossover Enroute for March
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2016, 09:39:34 AM »
Who is doing that? And why, if they aren't actively making a show with those characters so not making any money off of them?

This is one of the biggest problems with superheroes. A producer buys the rights with full intention of using the character. They shop the proposed movie to different studios until one agrees to produce the movie. Then they can't agree on a script, and the movie goes through years of development hell, perhaps even being dropped by one studio and picked up by another, until either the movie is finally made, or the rights finally expire. The same thing with television adaptions. A producer buys the television rights to a superhero and shops the show around to the networks. One example was with David E Kelly who bought the television rights to Wonder Woman, had NBC interested enough to order a pilot, cast Adrianne Palicki as the lead, and then had NBC deciding not to order the series after the pilot was shot. Even though David E Kelly's Wonder Woman series was dead, he continued to hold the rights, perhaps because he thought he may try again in a few years. There is never any incentive to give the rights back to DC. Once you purchase the film rights, you do not get a refund if the show you were producing goes down in flames. You probably are hoping to recoup your losses by either producing a different series with the character some time in the future, or selling the rights to the highest bidder.

 I have no idea who is currently holding the rights to Batman and Superman. I do know that in 1979 when Hanna-Barbera wanted to do a live action television series based on JLA called Legends of the Superheroes, they were unable to get the rights to Superman ( held by Ilya and Alexander Salkind who were producing the Superman films and later the series Superboy ) or Wonder Woman ( held by Douglas S Cramer who was producing the Linda Carter series at the same time ). The rights to Batman were available, and Hanna-Barbera were even able to cast Adam West and Burt Ward.

The television rights to Superman in the 90s were held by Deborah Joy LeVine who produced Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, which ended in 1997.  Smallville debuted in 2001 and ran for 10 seasons. There was a "No Tights, No Flights" rule which meant Clark could neither wear the Superman costume, nor use the power of flight. While the shows producers claimed the "No Tights, No Flights" rule was their idea, there was no excuse for that rule to extend to the final episode. In it, Clark must stop a meteor from crashing into Earth, and to do so decides that it was time to put on his Superman costume and fly for the first time. But you neither see Clark wearing the costume, nor actually flying. Even in the show's coda that takes place long after Clark became Superman, the show never shows him wearing the full costume or flying. This smacks more of the producers not having the rights to depict Clark as Superman rather than deciding not to.

Similarly, the live action Batman spin off series Birds of Prey which ran for a single season midway through Smallville's run, only showed Batman briefly in blurry flashbacks. It was explained that Batman had left Gotham. Also, almost all the other major supporting characters were missing ( including most of the villains and Commissioner Gordon ) suggesting someone else was holding the rights.

The fact that Gotham takes place a full decade before Batman suggests that the rights to the Batman character are being held by someone else, otherwise they would have produced a Batman series instead of a series based on his supporting characters. The same thing goes for Supergirl. The only excuse for Supergirl getting a series and not the more popular Superman would be if the rights were being held up. The fact that Superman's two appearances on the series had him either in silhouette, or as a blur flashing past the screen, seems to confirm this.

I'm not sure about your theory on Gotham. If the series didn't depict so many clearly Batman-related characters, including a young Bruce Wayne, maybe I could see it.
RoninFoxTrax Presents Rocky

gum.co/RFTrocky


Offline Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 28551
  • Liked: 6165
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: Flash/ Supergirl Crossover Enroute for March
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2016, 09:50:37 AM »
I figured the thing with Gotham was more that they wanted to do something different. And given that the villains are often the most interesting aspect anyway, it gives them a lot of freedom. It also helps budgetwise not having to do expensive Batsuits, Batcave, Batmobile, or the more elaborate superhero fight scenes.
I do get stethacantus is saying about producers wanting to keeps rights they already payed for. And I think he's right that that's the reason producers do that. Unfortunately that does lend itself to making them look greedy by the public. Just because there's no dollar value attached to public good will, that doesn't mean you should hold onto rights out of spite and bitterness because your particular project fell through.



Offline RoninFox

  • Gryffindork
  • ******
  • Posts: 14021
  • Liked: 2386
    • Ronin Fox Trax
Re: Flash/ Supergirl Crossover Enroute for March
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2016, 10:16:50 AM »
And I know my hang-up on the Gotham theory above seems to go hand in hand with the Smallville theory. If they can depict a Clark Kent without it being officially "Superman" then yeah they can get away with a Bruce Wayne without it being "Batman" but I tend to believe the Smallville producers when they claim the "No Tights, No Flights" rule was theirs considering the stories I've heard about the abandoned Superman Lives movie. A film that was definately made with all the proper rights in line, but at one point in development had a set of rules from one producer that included "I don't want to see him in that suit, I don't want to see him fly, and he has to fight a giant spider in the third act."

I can't see any rights situation that will allow a series to depict a character named Bruce Wayne who lives in a mansion named Wayne Manor in the city of Gotham with his butler Alfred after seeing his parents, Thomas and Martha, gunned down in an alley, who has romantic attatchments to characters named Selina Kyle and Silver St Cloud, and deals with a member of the Gotham police force named James Gordon...but don't worry, this doesn't in any way infringe on Batman.
RoninFoxTrax Presents Rocky

gum.co/RFTrocky


Offline Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 28551
  • Liked: 6165
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: Flash/ Supergirl Crossover Enroute for March
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2016, 11:21:55 AM »
I do wonder why the DC movies are going to have a different Flash and Green Arrow. That just seems like it will promote confusion with the general public. And it's not like either of those shows have any ill will, they're both massively popular. Why confuse people, AND saddle yourself with having to give backstories to these characters? Especially given the backwards way DC is doing their universe by doing Justice League near the beginning.



Offline stethacantus

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1065
  • Liked: 126
Re: Flash/ Supergirl Crossover Enroute for March
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2016, 09:32:12 PM »
SPOILER FOR TONIGHT'S EPISODE OF FLASH
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'm not sure about your theory on Gotham. If the series didn't depict so many clearly Batman-related characters, including a young Bruce Wayne, maybe I could see it.
I can't see any rights situation that will allow a series to depict a character named Bruce Wayne who lives in a mansion named Wayne Manor in the city of Gotham with his butler Alfred after seeing his parents, Thomas and Martha, gunned down in an alley, who has romantic attatchments to characters named Selina Kyle and Silver St Cloud, and deals with a member of the Gotham police force named James Gordon...but don't worry, this doesn't in any way infringe on Batman.

At some point in time cartoonists got smarter. Back when the rights to Thimble Theater was sold to Max Fleischer for the Popeye the Sailor cartoons, Fleischer had the rights to every single character in the strip, even though he only used a third of the characters. When Paramount sought to renew the rights for Popeye television cartoons, Kings Features wanted them to pay for each character separately. ( This time around Paramount paid for the rights of characters that had not previously appeared in animation, such as The Sea Hag. But they refused to pay for Bluto, instead opting to create a similar character named Brutis. As it turned out, Bluto was a very minor character that only appeared in a single Thimble Theater story. ) Comic book companies got even greedier. Not only were the rights to characters licensed separately, but they counted the secret identities as separate characters. So basically, Bruce Wayne and Batman are two different licences.

It is very likely that a producer bidding for the rights to Batman would only bother to seccure the rights to Batman himself, and not bother to bid for Bruce Wayne. If a network does order a Batman television series, then the rights to Bruce Wayne could be bought at a later date. If no network picks up the proposed Batman show then you have only wasted money on the rights to Batman. And if you are a really cheap producer, then Batman's secret identity could be original character Bill Wayne that you don't need to pay for. ( I am pretty sure that is what happened with The Incredible Hulk. )


Offline RoninFox

  • Gryffindork
  • ******
  • Posts: 14021
  • Liked: 2386
    • Ronin Fox Trax
Re: Flash/ Supergirl Crossover Enroute for March
« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2016, 04:43:46 AM »
SPOILER FOR TONIGHT'S EPISODE OF FLASH
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'm not sure about your theory on Gotham. If the series didn't depict so many clearly Batman-related characters, including a young Bruce Wayne, maybe I could see it.
I can't see any rights situation that will allow a series to depict a character named Bruce Wayne who lives in a mansion named Wayne Manor in the city of Gotham with his butler Alfred after seeing his parents, Thomas and Martha, gunned down in an alley, who has romantic attatchments to characters named Selina Kyle and Silver St Cloud, and deals with a member of the Gotham police force named James Gordon...but don't worry, this doesn't in any way infringe on Batman.

At some point in time cartoonists got smarter. Back when the rights to Thimble Theater was sold to Max Fleischer for the Popeye the Sailor cartoons, Fleischer had the rights to every single character in the strip, even though he only used a third of the characters. When Paramount sought to renew the rights for Popeye television cartoons, Kings Features wanted them to pay for each character separately. ( This time around Paramount paid for the rights of characters that had not previously appeared in animation, such as The Sea Hag. But they refused to pay for Bluto, instead opting to create a similar character named Brutis. As it turned out, Bluto was a very minor character that only appeared in a single Thimble Theater story. ) Comic book companies got even greedier. Not only were the rights to characters licensed separately, but they counted the secret identities as separate characters. So basically, Bruce Wayne and Batman are two different licences.

It is very likely that a producer bidding for the rights to Batman would only bother to seccure the rights to Batman himself, and not bother to bid for Bruce Wayne. If a network does order a Batman television series, then the rights to Bruce Wayne could be bought at a later date. If no network picks up the proposed Batman show then you have only wasted money on the rights to Batman. And if you are a really cheap producer, then Batman's secret identity could be original character Bill Wayne that you don't need to pay for. ( I am pretty sure that is what happened with The Incredible Hulk. )

I always heard that Bruce Banner became David Banner on TV because the producers at the time thought Bruce sounded "too gay", but that's purely anecdotal. 
RoninFoxTrax Presents Rocky

gum.co/RFTrocky


Offline k1

  • Beta Tester
  • ****
  • Posts: 9388
  • Liked: 1514
  • OneWallCinema: Like a snake to the heart.
    • OneWallCinema.com
Re: Flash/ Supergirl Crossover Enroute for March
« Reply #10 on: November 30, 2016, 09:54:27 AM »
With the 4 series crossover event going on, do I need to be caught up on Supergirl? Or can I just start with the crossover?  (I'm caught up on Flash, Arrow, & Legends, but I'm still on season 1 of Supergirl.)

Related note, did they completely reboot Supergirl going into season 2 or can I skip the rest of season 1?


Offline WhyDontTheyLook

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1376
  • Liked: 135
  • Tell me.
    • GaryWOlson.com
Re: Flash/ Supergirl Crossover Enroute for March
« Reply #11 on: November 30, 2016, 11:47:12 AM »
With the 4 series crossover event going on, do I need to be caught up on Supergirl? Or can I just start with the crossover?  (I'm caught up on Flash, Arrow, & Legends, but I'm still on season 1 of Supergirl.)

Related note, did they completely reboot Supergirl going into season 2 or can I skip the rest of season 1?

I don't watch Supergirl (my wife hated the pilot, and I didn't care enough to watch it by myself), but from what I understand, they just continued everything straight on into season 2 (with some adjustments to account for the change in production location and the reduced availability for Calista Flockhart).  Further, you can also skip the Supergirl episode of the crossover, as the only 'crossover' part was Barry and Cisco showing up at the end, asking her to come to their dimension to help fight the alien invasion.

I've read that there are plans afoot to make the two universes into one universe by season's end, but it's not happened yet.
"You never know, in a tight jam a nuclear missile just might come in handy."


Offline k1

  • Beta Tester
  • ****
  • Posts: 9388
  • Liked: 1514
  • OneWallCinema: Like a snake to the heart.
    • OneWallCinema.com
Re: Flash/ Supergirl Crossover Enroute for March
« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2016, 03:31:09 PM »
With the 4 series crossover event going on, do I need to be caught up on Supergirl? Or can I just start with the crossover?  (I'm caught up on Flash, Arrow, & Legends, but I'm still on season 1 of Supergirl.)

Related note, did they completely reboot Supergirl going into season 2 or can I skip the rest of season 1?

I don't watch Supergirl (my wife hated the pilot, and I didn't care enough to watch it by myself), but from what I understand, they just continued everything straight on into season 2 (with some adjustments to account for the change in production location and the reduced availability for Calista Flockhart).  Further, you can also skip the Supergirl episode of the crossover, as the only 'crossover' part was Barry and Cisco showing up at the end, asking her to come to their dimension to help fight the alien invasion.

I've read that there are plans afoot to make the two universes into one universe by season's end, but it's not happened yet.

Cool. Good to know.  My wife's reaction was along the lines of "please tell me we don't need to get caught up on all those episodes"  :D  She likes the other shows but didn't last past the pilot of Supergirl.


Offline Compound

  • Grendel's Mom
  • ***
  • Posts: 9461
  • Liked: 999
  • Happy 11th Birthday, Synch Issues!
Re: Flash/ Supergirl Crossover Enroute for March
« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2016, 05:01:48 PM »
K1, try to track down last year's Supergirl and Flash crossover. It was quite amusing to watch.


Offline k1

  • Beta Tester
  • ****
  • Posts: 9388
  • Liked: 1514
  • OneWallCinema: Like a snake to the heart.
    • OneWallCinema.com
Re: Flash/ Supergirl Crossover Enroute for March
« Reply #14 on: December 01, 2016, 03:31:55 AM »
K1, try to track down last year's Supergirl and Flash crossover. It was quite amusing to watch.

We watched that one. It was a fun one!