RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,147
Posts: 5,343,575
Members: 24,591
Currently online: 553
Newest member: Ryq

TrekToday headlines

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Retro Review: In the Pale Moonlight
By: Michelle on Jul 19

Trek Beach Towel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 18

Two New Starships Collection Releases
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17

Giacchino Tour Arrives In North America
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17

IDW Publishing October Star Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Jul 16

Cho As Romantic Lead
By: T'Bonz on Jul 16


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy

Science Fiction & Fantasy Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Firefly, vampires, genre books and film.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 9 2013, 04:57 PM   #16
Garak
Mr Garak. Today My Name is Mr Garak
 
Garak's Avatar
 
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

DC has always been behind Marvel in just about every facet imaginable. Always.

That's just the way of things, so it's hardly surprising they are lacking in the feature film department.
__________________
'Just be yourself' is good advice to probably 5% of people.
Garak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9 2013, 05:17 PM   #17
FPAlpha
Rear Admiral
 
FPAlpha's Avatar
 
Location: Mannheim, Germany
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

Killing off Captain America in the comics made national news. National news!!

Killing off Batman/Bruce Wayne made some 3rd grade news in online news sites under the entertainment section.

Need i say more? Apart from Superman and Batman it seems DC has nothing more concerning public interest.. i always hear so much about Wonder Woman and how she is the third character in the DC "Big Three" but to be honest.. the public knows next to nothing about her and most movie fans are too young to even remember the show with Lynda Carter from the 70s (are there even current reruns somewhere?).

Public also means mainstream people who don't watch the animated shows and movies where she features prominently.

However ask some random person and they will tell you about half a dozen Marvel characters even if they may not go that deep into it other than "that bald guy in the wheelchair" or Wolverine. Marvel has simply won the popularity race against DC.. if there ever was a race that is.

Part of it is simply blind luck though in my opinion.. what would have happened if Singer made a DC team movie and started the superhero movie genre again? Marvel got lucky.. Blade was a modest hit though most people didn't know (or still don't know) that he's a Marvel character. X-Men ignited the whole genre again and only then did Marvel make the right (and bold) choice to go all in with Iron Man.

They got lucky with Robert Downey Jr. because let's face it.. IM is a pretty generic story about someone having a change of heart and becoming a hero (and in this case some visual effects eye candy on top) but Downey really sold the role and made the movie a hit which started the whole snowball to avalanche system thus far culminating in The Avengers.

DC is hopelessly lost.. everything they do will either be lauded as copying Marvel or just downright silly or uninteresting. They need that one spark.. either a breakout movie or someone who understands and loves the medium like Singer or Whedon to take the reigns and create something that people will want to see.
__________________
"A control freak like you with something you can't control? No no.. that's gonna be more fun than shark week!" Det. Javier Esposito
FPAlpha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9 2013, 05:41 PM   #18
Agent Richard07
Admiral
 
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

DC isn't behind. It had several decades of success, now it's Marvel's turn.
Agent Richard07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9 2013, 06:08 PM   #19
Admiral2
Vice Admiral
 
Admiral2's Avatar
 
Location: Peregrine Cliff
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

Turtletrekker wrote: View Post
Marvel has a plan. WB/DC doesn't
Yep. Pretty much.
__________________
"That's another thing Hollywood gets wrong. Real women EAT."

-Tom Clancy
Admiral2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9 2013, 06:32 PM   #20
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

Agent Richard07 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 and Spider-Man, we still got duds like Daredevil too.

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: View Post
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.


Nightowl1701 wrote: View Post
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:

Superman Returns
Watchmen
Jonah Hex
Green Lantern


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.


Gaith wrote: View Post
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 passé. 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.
Arrow 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.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9 2013, 07:09 PM   #21
The Overlord
Captain
 
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

Christopher wrote: View Post
Agent Richard07 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 and Spider-Man, we still got duds like Daredevil too.

.
See the problem with that is, when DC was at its height, they only had one franchise going on and several DC franchises have never been adapted to film.

From 1978 to 1987 it was just Superman related films and that is it.

From 1989 to 1997, it was mainly just Batman films, the main exception being Steel.

We still have not seen a Flash movie or a Wonder Woman movie. Pretty well every major Marvel character has gotten a movie and now Ant Man and Guardians of the Galaxy are getting movies before Flash and Wonder Woman. That is the problem I have, even when DC was on top, they did nothing with a lot of characters, just focusing on their two big franchises.
The Overlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9 2013, 07:24 PM   #22
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

^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.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9 2013, 07:34 PM   #23
Gaith
Rear Admiral
 
Gaith's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

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.
Gaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9 2013, 07:38 PM   #24
The Overlord
Captain
 
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
Old April 9 2013, 07:59 PM   #25
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

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"?!?
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9 2013, 08:20 PM   #26
Christopher
Writer
 
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.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9 2013, 08:40 PM   #27
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

While its reviews were decidedly mixed, Daredevil wasn't a critical failure either, at least according to Metacritic, and assuming that "critical failure" means overwhelmingly negative reviews, just to set the record straight.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9 2013, 08:42 PM   #28
Gaith
Rear Admiral
 
Gaith's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

Christopher wrote: View Post
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.
Don't shoot the messenger, hombre. I'd love to see those techniques employed a lot more, but I don't think compositing in a miniature stop-motion Hulk would have produced the kind of ticket purchases CG has.



Christopher wrote:
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.
Uh... no. The main villain was CGI, remember? And the fact that Webb used more stunt work than Raimi doesn't change the fact that he needed modern CG, including a digital map of NYC built in part by the earlier productions, and that he wouldn't have been able to make nearly the same movie around the time Burton made his Bat-flicks.



Christopher wrote: View Post
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.
But amigo, that's exactly my point! CG was available to both Marvel and DC for space/earth superhero origin stories in 2011's Thor and Green Lantern, and the critical and financial winner was clear.
Gaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9 2013, 09:24 PM   #29
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

I still say you're giving CG too much credit. There were still awesome special effects in the days before CG. Audiences today might find the FX in older movies inadequate, but audiences at the time, including myself, found them truly impressive and spectacular. Granted, a lot of things would've been harder to do, a lot of FX and action sequences would've had to be somewhat more limited than they could be now, but the movies would work around that. Frankly, modern CGI often makes it too easy for filmmakers to take FX sequences to the level of excess, to the detriment of the story. Limitations are often a good thing for the creative process.

I think the Hulk could've been done pre-CG with animatronics and prosthetics, and stop-motion for the bigger action stuff like huge leaps and tossing tanks. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen did its Hulk-like Mr. Hyde with prosthetics, only using digital effects to increase the actor's apparent size. Good prosthetic makeup can be amazingly convincing. And it has the advantage over CG of actually being physically real and occupying its environment. (I once went to a museum exhibit of special effects, and one of the displays was a Rick Baker-created ape mask from Greystoke or some such film, and in repose it looked uncannily lifelike, even up close and in person.) The transformations would've been harder to do, but they'd probably have fallen back on the tried-and-true techniques of cutting between closeups. Baker did some impressive work with prosthetic transformations in An American Werewolf in London, Wolf, and other projects.

CGI makes special effects easier, lets them be taken farther. That doesn't mean they're impossible without it.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9 2013, 10:09 PM   #30
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

The Overlord wrote: View Post

We still have not seen a Flash movie or a Wonder Woman movie. Pretty well every major Marvel character has gotten a movie and now Ant Man and Guardians of the Galaxy are getting movies before Flash and Wonder Woman. That is the problem I have, even when DC was on top, they did nothing with a lot of characters, just focusing on their two big franchises.
To be fair, there was a live-action FLASH television series launched immediately in the wake of the 1989 BATMAN movie. And BIRDS OF PREY and THE HUMAN TARGET and LOIS & CLARK and, of course, ten years (!) of SMALLVILLE. And now ARROW.

Granted, those were TV, not movies, but it's not as though DC was letting the rest of its list go fallow. They just seemed to be focusing more on the small screen than the big one.

(And how many live-action Marvel TV shows were there during that period?)
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.