You just hate the character. She's obviously very liked by audience, is great for the part and has very cool story hooks. Loosing all that is objectively bad.
I actually don't hate the character. I can see how it may come across that way but you have to consider the context of the thread where the average opinion being expressed is "OMG SARA DA BES! KILL OFF LAUREL NAO!" I exaggerate but let's be real, the Arrow thread is full of embellishment. It's all for fun and all that but posts like mine comes across as polar opposite when bookended with those kinds of embellished posts. Her story hooks really aren't that cool or creative. They literally resurrected her to put her on the island and as of yet there's zero information on how she became to be connected to The League. They could connect back to The League or any other group/syndicate/villain with any character like that.
Maybe that's why all live action female superheroes sucked before? Or heck, why most women suck in action roles? Because directors are afraid of casting a women in that roles that aren't thin as sticks.
Well that's an opinion. There have been perfectly fine portrayals of female heroes, superheroes, spies, etc... It usually comes down moreso to the production, not the physique of the actresses. Xena and Gabrielle were awesome heroes in their series and neither of them were super lean with low body fat percentage to show off abs. None of the Whedon heroines were in super shape either.
It's extremely serious. It grounds those characters immensely and helps with suspension of disbelief. After seeing Ammell perform the salmon ladder I could completely believe he's able to do all the other crazy stuff his character does on screen.
Suspension of disbelief? In
Arrow? If you can't see how awful that argument is, I really don't know what to tell you.
It's also used real actors often and the results are always a lot better than when they use stuntmen.
Yeah, outside of Roy's parkour, I'm positive that you can't point out what scenes were stuntmen and what scenes were actors. The Direction and Editing of Arrow is what makes those scenes come across as good as they do.
That's your argument for Laurel as BC? That she will suck in fight scenes as much as Huntress does?
It's certainly a better argument than selective quoting and ignoring that Stephen Amell was trained for his part and no one has complained about his performance and Katie could be trained just as easily.
You know what it's also not? Laurel Lance: The series.You act like Laurel is some insanely integral part of the show and that absolutely every effort needs to be made to salvage her. It's not. She's useless in the show and the show would benefit from dropping that character. All the effort and screen time that would be required to turn Laurel around would be spent a lot better on actually interesting and likable characters .
Laurel kind of IS integral to the
canon of Green Arrow. It would be like having a Spiderman show with no Mary Jane. Superman with no Lois Lane. X-men with no Jean Grey. Sara is the extraneous character that was added to the show to circumvent the comic's use of Laurel's mother as the first BC. And it seriously sounds like you're championing a fan service show when you talk about only focusing on "interesting and likable characters." That would actually hurt the show. There has to be characters that the audience is rooting against and having those only be villains is pretty bland.
Ultimatelly this is what all of this boils down to. This isn't a drama about girl struggling to live her life in Starling City. This is a show about Green Arrow kicking ass with his side kicks. We already have BC that works like a charm and fit the whole structure of the show so well she gave us some of the best episodes of the series. There's really no real advantage of throwing all of that away and then wasting valuable time just so we can have her be replaced by vastly inferior version of BC.
Killing Sara wouldn't be throwing anything away. It goes towards the continued evolution of Ollie as Green Arrow. It's a common superhero trope that the Hero has to constantly go through strife and loss. Has to continually be tested and tortured. If they're never in danger of losing someone or dying themselves then there's no stakes or growth. The show becomes bland and one note and boring.
Aside from Ollie's growth it would create a BC that has actually suffered loss. Sara's been through some tough stuff but she hasn't actually lost anything. In fact, she's
gained. The only one in the whole show who has actually (except for Felicity but there's hints that she has some tragedy in her past as well). That doesn't strike you as odd at all?
The show also doesn't have the budget or the time to spend on training someone to get as good as Caity Lotz is already. There is a reason why they have so many Spartacus people, and a lot less untrained actors getting fighting roles.
I can't speak to budget but they could easily put her through some basic training in the off season. Amell isn't exactly a Black Belt. They just need her to look proficient at a few basics and then teach her the choreography before the filming of each episode, the same they would do any other actor or stunt person. They'll do what they have to do to fit the story. Making the story fit casting choices for a tv show would be a bad move.
