View Single Post
Old April 9 2013, 09:20 PM   #26
Christopher's Avatar
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

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?
Umm, yeah, that's pretty much my point: that Arrow is an attempt to do a Nolan-style superhero show for television.

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.
Like too many people today, you're giving CG far too much credit, and forgetting how much great stuff filmmakers in the past were able to do using miniatures, stop motion, cel animation, live stunt work, and other techniques. Keep in mind that the Marc Webb Amazing Spider-Man relied less on CGI and more on practical stunt work than the Raimi films did. Superman 2 did an awesome hero-villain battle without a trace of computer intervention. RoboCop 2 did some fantastic action sequences for a hero in metallic armor using stop-motion intercut with live stunt work. The 1990 The Flash television series used the cutting-edge video effects and motion control technology of the day to do some pretty impressive renderings of the Flash's speed.

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.
Green Lantern had CG out the wazoo, but that didn't make it a better movie. Come on, we've known for generations that cutting-edge special effects won't save a movie if the story and characters aren't engaging.

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
And even when we started to get good Marvel films like X-Men and Spider-Man, we still got duds like Daredevil too.
I've never seen the word "dud" applied to a financially successful film that had a spin-off. "Disappointment" perhaps, but "dud"?!?
The word "dud" has long been a slang synonym for failure in many contexts. It has never been limited exclusively to financial failure. It originally meant a person in ragged clothing (as in "duds"), then evolved to mean something fake and shoddy, then to mean something useless or ineffectual, and in World War I it began to be used to refer to an unexploded shell or missile, leading to its current vernacular meaning of a costly failure of any sort.

So a critical failure can be called a dud as well as a box-office failure or indeed any kind of failed undertaking in any context whatsoever.
Written Worlds -- Christopher L. Bennett's blog and webpage
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote