how fuggin miserable are warner execs right now about marvel movies...

[kcekada]

The biggest difference I see between Marvel and DC movies is that Marvel seems to be able to keep closer to the source material.  Which captures what makes the character popular and accessable in the first place.  DC/Warner wants to "re-imagine" and overthink all of their properties in an effort to appeal to a broader audience. 

Bingo!

[Year6Robin]

I'll admit that I'm aggrivated.

Go back an odd number of years, and the average person had never heard of CAPTAIN AMERICA, IRON MAN, THOR, NICK FURY, S.H.I.E.L.D., the BLACK WIDOW, or even the name The AVENGERS.  Fast forward to now.

A lot of younger people relate more to MARVEL characters and find DC stuff to just be too old fashioned.  The lack of successful DC movies sure ain't helping that point of view.

I'm not saying I know how to solve the problem.  I'm certainly not saying that movies are the Be All End All, and they are more important than the comics.  I'm just saying that it's frustrating to love both properties, and to see MARVEL kicking ass and taking names, and DC....not.

[fishmilkshake]

A lot of younger people relate more to MARVEL characters and find DC stuff to just be too old fashioned.  The lack of successful DC movies sure ain't helping that point of view.

Thinking about this, perhaps it's not even "successful" movies? For good or bad, Marvel got 'C' list characters like Blade on to the big screen 3 times! Ghost Rider twice! So there's that ongoing visibility.

DC's "Big Seven" are not doing particularly well with just three of them being realised on the big screen. Jonah Hex should have been the equivalent of Blade. A niche film that generates sequels but it offended pretty much everyone instead.

After Green Lantern we're getting Batman and then Supes in 2013, but that should have been followed up with a JL movie. But they let different people play in different ponds with their licenses and you get a mish-mash.

Generally, a movie has to take 3x what it cost to make to break even. 1/3 of takings goes to cinemas, another to cover marketing and the remainder to the studio. Green Lantern cost $200m and took $219m worldwide. You can bet we won't be getting a Flash film for a long time!

[Gardner Grayle]

See, I'm all for what many of you are saying, wanting to see DC get their act together.  But this revisionist painting is what bugs me.  That's simply not the way it went down.

Spider-Man (2002)
Daredevil (2003)
X-Men (2000)
Fantastic Four (2005)
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
Hulk (2003)

What you SHOULD have said -- is starting with Iron Man in 2008 -- that's when Marvel started to put this in motion in the manner you described.

So can we make THAT the "starting point"?  Or do we just overlook all the Marvel missteps over the past 20 years and instead anoint them the golden child?  And I'm not even going to bother touching on the films that did lead up to the Avengers, as it appears they are all also now sacrosanct?   Apparently, "OK" and "Passable" are the new bars for excellence. Not to mention the other Marvel superhero films that have been released by studios outside of Paramount and now Disney over the four+ years, which lower that standard further, to "Kinda Crappy".

And we've agreed to do that (narrow the focus to 2008 and up) -- then what have we really got?  You have some minor DC-related films that are not really part of the major DCU (and wouldn't be part of any shared universe continuum) like the Losers and Jonah Hex (one kinda crappy, the other a horrible blight on cinema screens everywhere) -- so they don't count.

So what's been released over the past four & a half years?

THE DARK KNIGHT (2008) and GREEN LANTERN (2011)

When Nolan signed on to do the Batman films, they ceded creative control over to him, as he envisioned the world and a story (which turned out to be an actual trilogy).  Batman Begins restored the franchise from the steaming wreckage of the late 90's, and The Dark Knight was one of the most successful films of all time as well as one of the most critically lauded films as well.  THE DARK KNIGHT RISES hits theaters in a few months, and despite the "meh" reaction of some folks here, is still ranking as the most highly anticipated film of the year.

GREEN LANTERN  -- well, that was a huge piece of shit.

And, well -- that's pretty much it.  THE MAN OF STEEL comes out next year.  Is the ire due to the fact that it doesn't appear that such a film will be used as a building block to the rest of the DCU?

I can see wishing WB / DC had put some sort of strategy in place - and they had two opportunities that we know of to do this -- GREEN LANTERN (which might not have saved it from being utter dreck) and the upcoming MAN OF STEEL.  And that's about...it.  It just doesn't seem to be enough to base such a "storming the castle" mentality. 

I got the timeline wrong.  As JSay would remark "fair play".  But I still stand behind the rest of my statement.  What separates a thrill-a-minute joy-ride of a movie like Spider-Man from an ill cast snooze fest POS like Fantastic Four?  I'd have to say budget and crew.  Avi Arad had his hand on the switch for most if not all of these films.  So why the differences?  And I'm sincerely asking, not being confrontational.  And you're absolutely correct that what Marvel is doing started with Iron Man I.  And they put it together superbly.

FWIW, my opinion alone, the only DC movies I've ever really like have been the Nolan Bat-flicks.  And LoEG which will surely get me mocked.  Watchmen was OK.  And Jack will always be the Joker for me.  That's it.

And it's what I find frustrating.  Marvel can pull it all together.  And DC/Warner cant.  So far.         

[zeekzin]

But what 'heights' has Marvel ever reached? They've never had a Dark Knight or Watchmen equivalent in the comics at all. They've been chugging away on the admittedly supernova-like Lee/Kirby/Ditko Silver Age inspiration since their inception, and frankly, aside from Giant-Sized X-Men #1, there's been very little true new energy added that wasn't basically present from birth. whereas I see DC has been a far more elastic company in challenging its own basic premises over the years.

I think I take exception to the belief that there's something inherently unworkable about DC's characters that doesn't translate to other media (or even into comics itself, as they develop).

The reason they haven't succeeded is because Warner Brothers overthinks and micro-manages its concepts to death. Constantine is a great example. Take the British-ness out of the character and they've missed the point entirely. Turn Jonah Hex into a supernatural story and ditto. Make Superman a brooding, removed misfit instead of the hero that every kid wants to be because it's fun to be super-powered, and you've lost the essence.

That to me is the problem with translating DC heroes. They're usually so simple (by which I mean basic) in concept that the producers think they have to add so much more to make them work for 'sophisticated' modern audiences, when all they have to do is tell us a good story with the essence of what people like about the character(s) intact. Stop gilding the lily and stay true to what made the concept work in the first place. And hire the right people to abide by that.

And THAT is why the Avengers films have succeeded and-- to stay within Marvel's backyard-- why the Fantastic Four films failed. Lesson learned in time for Iron Man. Marvel got it. Hopefully someone at WB will get it... eventually.

I love this post.

[Scot Eric]

Marvel Movies from 2000 thru 2012

The Avengers (2012)
Blade 2 (2002)
Blade: Trinity (2004)
Captain America (2011)
Daredevil (2003)
Spider-Man (2002)
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
The Amazing Spider-Man (July 2012)
Fantastic Four (2005)
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
Ghost Rider (2007)
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2012)
Hulk (2003)
The Incredible Hulk (2008)
Iron Man (2008)
Iron Man 2 (2010)
The Punisher (2004)
Punisher: War Zone (2008)
Thor (2011)
X-Men (2000)
X2: X-Men United (2003)
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)
X-Men: First Class (2011)

DC Movies from 2000 thru 2012

Batman Begins (2005)
The Dark Knight (2008)
The Dark Knight Rises (July 2012)
Catwoman (2004)
Constantine (2005)
Green Lantern (2011)
Jonah Hex (2010)
The Losers (2010)
Red (2010)
Superman Returns (2006)
Watchmen (2009)
V for Vendetta (2006)

Before the "big plan" went into effect, Marvel had sold the movie rights to several properties (such as Spider-Man, Daredevil, X-Men, Fantastic Four, etc) to several other studios.  That's why they would have a far bigger output of films in the same time period (as opposed to DC -- which being part of Time Warner just like Warner Bros -- so a single movie studio already retains the rights to all the characters).  As any one studio cannot fill their slate with "comic book movies" -- there would thus have to be far fewer films.  It's like a law of physics -- you can't change that.

Unfortunately, that also means when WB makes a piece of crap -- it can have a bigger chilling effect on other "comic book films" -- which wasn't the case with Marvel.  Sony having a stinker with Ghost Rider doesn't affect Fox wanting to make X-Men: First Class, for example.

For whatever reason, WB has passed over several superhero titles in favor of "graphic novel" material like Red, V for Vendetta, Watchmen -- and other less mainstream fare like Jonah Hex, the Losers and Constantine.  I wholeheartedly agree that these last three should have been made with tight budgets and even tighter writing.

But if we're going to go down the DC / Marvel blah blah blah -- you have to eliminate a lot of these.

It really comes down to two completely horrible films (Catwoman [2004] & Green Lantern [2011]), Nolan's Bat-Films (both critically and commercially extremely successful) and the misguided warming over of a 30 year old classic film (Superman Returns [2006]).  And that's about it.

I keep saying there's just not a large enough sampling -- for a long enough duration of time -- for there to be an adequate comparison.  Especially when the Marvel machine didn't really start rolling until 2008.  I look at the facts, and  it looks to me as though my original assertion is still valid. But, ya know, YMMV...

Do I wish someone at DC / WB had the foresight several years ago to put a similar plan into action?  Absolutely.  The fact that one studio retains ALL the character rights makes it even easier.  But they didn't.  It's really more a huge credit to Marvel, Arad, Feige, et al to have done something that is pretty much unprecedented in the film business.  

PS: Rod's post is still the best thing on this thread!

[Gardner Grayle]

 

Great post Scot.  +1. 

[darthfoley]

Would History of Violence and Road to Perdition not also fall under the DC movie banner for that time frame?  They certainly aren't superhero movies, but they were based on DC output under either Vertigo or Paradox.  And I thought both were excellent movies.

[fishmilkshake]

Do I wish someone at DC / WB had the foresight several years ago to put a similar plan into action?  Absolutely.  

I assume there's some heavy duty meetings going on at DC and Warner atm. We could very well be seeing the start of DC's time to shine with the lessons learned from Marvel.

[SDcomics]

Disney's stock is soaring.

There's going to be a regime change at Warner's real soon.

[Scot Eric]

Would History of Violence and Road to Perdition not also fall under the DC movie banner for that time frame?  They certainly aren't superhero movies, but they were based on DC output under either Vertigo or Paradox.  And I thought both were excellent movies.

For whatever reason, films like Road to Perdition and A History of Violence do not appear on the lists of DC Comics Adaptations on Box Office Mojo. Which is too bad, because film-wise, they're both better than almost all the films listed above.

[JSayonara]

For the record, I really like LOEG.

Sure it was different from the comics, but it was a good romp that caused no harm to the actual franchise.

But then I like Constantine (despite it's many, many faults) and really don't get why the Losers gets no love, that was a frigging brilliant film.

[darthfoley]

I was given The Losers on blu-ray for XMas, but haven't gotten around to watching it yet.  Really liked the comic back during that run.

[Big Raj]

Losers was a lot of fun.

[Gardner Grayle]

Stunk.

Nine Questions with the men of Sequart

A Sequel Soliloquy: Scot Eric's Top Twelve #2's of All Time

The Golden Age Blog - Flash 11-20!

American Comics: The Illusion of Change

The Golden Age Blog - Flash 1-10!

CriticalMess interviews writer Steve Bryant!

Mess member Jim Beard helms new Batman TV book!!

Nine Questions with Pamela Des Barres

Advanced search