has the right of it. These things are cyclical. A decade or two ago, it was DC that had all the hit movies, while Marvel fans were wondering why their guys couldn't get their act together and put out anything good. And even when we started to get good Marvel films like X-Men
, we still got duds like Daredevil
So it's just the luck of the draw. It's just about who currently has a better strategy and better ideas and better execution, and that's a function of the specific filmmakers and executives involved, rather than being about the companies or the characters per se. Eventually WB will get its act together and we'll get more good DC movies -- and eventually Marvel Films will lose its way and its current success streak will end. Everything fluctuates over time.
The Lensman wrote:
Because DC is owned by Warner Brothers and has zero say in what movies of their properties get made. Warner Brothers is a movie studio, not a "make DC comics into movies" studio.
That's no longer true. DC Entertainment was established a few years ago and given responsibility for developing DC properties in multimedia. (In fact, DC Comics is now simply one subsidiary of DCE.) Geoff Johns, the chief creative officer of DCE, is in overall charge of creative decisions for all DC properties, including comics, film, TV, direct-to-video, computer games, etc. So it's all under centralized control, much the same as with Marvel. DC Entertainment has been the primary production company responsible for the DC movies since 2010; Warner Bros. just "Presents" them.
This hasn't stopped them from blatantly meddling not only in the film adaptations but in the comics themselves, trying to recast the whole pantheon in the image of Nolan's Batman and in turn rendering the DC superheroes all but unrecognizable.
Huh? Give me one example. Here are the non-Batman live-action DC superhero films that have come out since Batman Begins
Please explain to me how any one of those was in any way influenced by Nolan's Batman. Superman Returns
was an overly fannish homage to the Richard Donner Superman films. Watchmen
was a slavish adaptation of the comics. Jonah Hex
was, reportedly, a supernatural-themed Western that resembled Will Smith's Wild Wild West
more than anything else. And Green Lantern
was a garish, larger-than-life space opera. There's no Nolan influence in any of those. And there didn't seem to be any in the David Kelley Wonder Woman
TV pilot either.
The only DC properties in live action to show any influence from the Nolan Batfilms are the upcoming Man of Steel
produced by Nolan himself, which is getting very positive advance reviews, and Arrow
on television, which is one of the biggest hits of the season.
1) Marvel's characters are just plain better. Cue a pointed dissent from Christopher
in 3... 2... 1..., but it's true.
That's a matter of personal taste, of course, but I repeat what I said above: It wasn't that long ago that only DC films were succeeding and Marvel films were either nonexistent or dismal failures. So even if that were true, it couldn't be said to be a causative factor in the respective success of the film adaptations, because in that case one would consistently
do better than the other across all time.
2) Gotham aside (it gets a pass on grimdarkness), fictional cities are passť. Places like Metropolis and Star City were probably a lot more interesting and felt more real to suburban and rural kids around the country before decades of on-location movies and TV shows made real cities, and New York in particular, far more relatable than Generic Superhero Town #4.
is set in the fictional Starling City and it's a major hit.
It's pretty bizarre to blame the success or failure of a work of fiction on its setting. It's the characters, the plot, the ideas, and the execution that make a film succeed or fail. A well-told story about intriguing, well-acted characters in Simulopolis, Shamsylvania is naturally going to be more successful than an incoherent, miscast, shoddily directed piece of hackery set in New York or San Francisco.