View Single Post
Old April 9 2013, 07:38 PM   #24
The Overlord
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

Christopher wrote: View Post
^Maybe, but the point is that making blanket judgments based on the current state of affairs is unwise, because there's no telling what's fundamental and what's just a temporary convergence of factors. I'm using the example of the past as a cautionary tale about perceptions -- because if you'd asked anyone back then which comics company fared better in movie adaptations, nobody would've thought Marvel had a clue. And a lot of people no doubt mistook that contemporary state of affairs for a universal, eternal truth, because people often fail to consider the big picture and realize how much things can change in the course of a decade or two.
Maybe I am just spoiled by the last decade, but I still think its a huge shame that a lot important DC franchises have not gotten movies yet. Since the new millennium, pretty well every major Marvel character has been adapted to the Silver Screen and DC has allowed some its major players to be sidelined.

So even when DC was on top, it wasn't like they took as many chances as Marvel did in the last decade, it was just one or two characters and that is it. There is still no Wonder Woman or Flash movie announced. I know there was some growing pains in terms of super hero movies developed and Superman I was a trail blazer that was necessary for a lot of the modern super hero movies, but I would look more fondly upon DC's "golden age of films" if it was more then just one or two characters.

There is still tons of concepts that could make for good films, just not being used and have never been used, its a waste.

Gaith wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
Arrow is set in the fictional Starling City and it's a major hit.
Major by CW standards, maybe, but while I haven't seen the show, would it be fair to say that Starling City is more or less TDK's Gotham?

Christopher wrote: View Post
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.
Ah, but you don't need modern CG effects to do a Batman or Superman movie. (Which, correct me if I'm wrong, were the only live-action successes DC movies had before our modern era.)

But how do you show Spider-Man swinging through skyscraper canyons without CG? How do you show the Iron Man suit blasting around and firing rockets without CG? How do you make a ten-foot, photoreal Hulk share a poignant moment with a human costar without CG? How do you do epic mutant-on-mutant battles without CG? You just don't, not in live action, at least.

You may say it's a coincidence that Marvel movies started getting good pretty much exactly when the technology to do their characters justice became available. But I think it's just as likely that, Supes and Bats aside, modern CG created a fair playing field... and that's exactly why Marvel movies are making DC look like the guys the Harlem Globetrotters run circles around.

See I think it have been possible to do a Flash or Wonder Woman movie before CGI, their powers are very straight forward. I think WB trying to create a cinematic DCU and using Green Lantern to launch it was a mistake, they have gone with someone who was easier to adapt.
The Overlord is offline   Reply With Quote