I have to agree with Broc but be more charitable in saying that Marvel seems to take more risks (and probably fails more often). Remember that it was Blade that got the whole ball rolling and it was probably the most unlikely success story ever. Marvel and the studios they work with either through design or luck seem to find the right directors for their movies lately. Goyer for Blade, Singer for X-men, Favreau for Iron Man, and Johnston with Captain America. I think Campbell was probably the biggest reason why GL failed and that's simply because of pure apathy.
Do Marvel's characters work better in movies than DC's?
- Thread starter Agenda
- Start date
There was also Superman: the new adventures of Lois and Clark and Superboy plus numerous animated series.
Well Marvel has The Incredible Hulk which many consider the best live action TV series.
There is nothing stopping Marvel from doing the same, eventually. The Defenders had an eclectic membership that included Spider-man and the Beast. The only real limitation is that various studios own various properties so you won't see Spider-man and Wolverine in the Avengers for some time.
Yeah Marvel characters probably have more distinct issues and problems which makes them a bit easier to write a screenplay around, but I don't think that's really what is drawing audiences to them.
Marvel has just done a MUCH better job marketing their movies, and they've gone out of their way to make them as audience-friendly as possible (where DC turned off audiences from the start with a quiet, introspective Superman movie and a cheesy-looking Green Lantern movie).
Still though, I don't really think it's fair to compare the two just yet. Marvel has put out a buttload of big, tentpole superhero movies in the last 10 years (many, in my opinion, being fairly average), while DC has basically just had the two Nolan batfilms, SR, and GL. And only one of those could really be considered an outright "bomb". The rest either did great or okay business.
the problem with DC is, they've got too many versions of the same fucking characters running around. all those fucking Green Lanterns and Flashes. Half the DCU seems to be legacy characters. that and they've got way too complicated with all these reboots and continuity issues and shit. it makes it a LOT harder to define some of their characters, VS Batman, Superman and most of Marvel's stuff where they're a lot more straight forward to nail down.
True that Superman has been the only DC character that's had a record of success on the small screen in the last 30 years, but compare that to Marvel. There are none. As already pointed out, you had Lois and Clark, Superboy, and a ten-year run on Smallville. Marvel hasn't had a success like that ever. The last major TV show they had was the Hulk. I'm not sure you can count Mutant X since that was based on original characters and not taken from the comics (I never watched the show, but that was my impression). So even though DC has largely had success with just one character, they've hit multiple times with him.
And they've been more willing over the years it seems to at least try their hands with putting more of their characters on live-action TV: Flash, Birds of Prey, Justice League pilot, Aquaman pilot, Wonder Woman pilot. There was also talk of a Dick Grayson show, Blue Beetle, and a Raven show. Marvel is just getting around to proposing a slate of TV shows based on their characters. Before that, we had one season of Blade.
And they've been more willing over the years it seems to at least try their hands with putting more of their characters on live-action TV: Flash, Birds of Prey, Justice League pilot, Aquaman pilot, Wonder Woman pilot. There was also talk of a Dick Grayson show, Blue Beetle, and a Raven show. Marvel is just getting around to proposing a slate of TV shows based on their characters. Before that, we had one season of Blade.
I think the marketing campaigns and stuff are in part easier for Marvel because the characters themselves are easier to market. They have a cool factor that DC's characters don't quite have too. Marvel is a more contemporary company and that's reflected in how they created many of their characters and why they catch on on the big screen.
The funny thing is DC should be having just as easy or easier a time because many of their characters are better known, but they are not better developed and often not better written. So they are blank slates and that's why we might get movies that 'don't get' the characters, except for Batman, because the characters came out of an era where character development took a back seat to their looks, power set, and adventures. Don't get me wrong, those things are important for Marvel or any comic book company, but early Marvel tried to give their characters traits that would hook in readers in a way that DC didn't.
To be fair to DC, they actually have put out quite a few comic book films over the last decade: Constantine, V for Vendetta, Watchmen, The Losers, Jonah Hex, RED in addition to the Batfilms, Superman Returns, and Green Lantern. But as you can see, they put out obscure properties instead of going for the big guns first. I could see using that strategy to test the waters, but it's way past that point now. Marvel has been able to put out more obscure characters right along with their bigger guns in a way DC hasn't.
I was referring more to just straight superhero movies, but yeah, I agree DC needs to hurry up and get off their ass.
As for the "cool" factor, you might be right. I have a feeling when most of the general public thinks of characters like Flash, Green Lantern, or Wonder Woman, they just think of something ultra cheesy like Superfriends. lol
I don't think DC characters are inherently inferior to Marvel (although I've always preferred Marvel personally.) I think it's more that Marvel Studios is actively ensuring that the movies stay true to the characters.
It's very striking how the movies they're involved in feel far truer to the characters and the comics than ones where another studio is also involved. Even if the movies are good - X-Men - there's something off about them that I can't quite put my finger on. But the latest Hulk, Iron Man and Captain America are right on the money. Marvel Studios on their own would never let some director like Ang Lee go galumphing off in some completely wrong-ass direction like he did with the first Hulk movie. Maybe that's the movie where Marvel learned their lesson, that they need a firmer hand on the creative reins?
I think a lot of directors and studios might not appreciate the degree to which mere "comic book characters" have their own personality and integrity that must be respected. You wouldn't adapt Hamlet and turn him into a cocky race car driver, would you? (I probably shouldn't say that out loud.)
But Marvel may have another advantage in that their characters do have "cores" to stay true to:
Spider-Man: with great power comes great responsibility.
X-Men: being oppressed is no excuse to be evil.
Hulk: basically the Jeckyl/Hyde story.
Iron Man: being a drunk with a heart condition is no excuse to be a bastard. (Okay, this one is more down to Robert Downey Jr's personal charisma.)
Captain America: exploration of "American values" in which the simplistic values of the 1940s are being explored in the first movie, with the 21st C due to expand the theme (if my guess is correct).
Compared with these, only Batman has a core theme: is vigilantism justified? But what's Superman's theme? "Truth, justice and the American way" is a slogan, not a theme. What does it mean? And isn't Cap covering that territory better anyway? What's Green Lantern's theme? There's probably a good one, I just don't know the character well enough. Bet the movie ignored it, didn't it?
It's very striking how the movies they're involved in feel far truer to the characters and the comics than ones where another studio is also involved. Even if the movies are good - X-Men - there's something off about them that I can't quite put my finger on. But the latest Hulk, Iron Man and Captain America are right on the money. Marvel Studios on their own would never let some director like Ang Lee go galumphing off in some completely wrong-ass direction like he did with the first Hulk movie. Maybe that's the movie where Marvel learned their lesson, that they need a firmer hand on the creative reins?
I think a lot of directors and studios might not appreciate the degree to which mere "comic book characters" have their own personality and integrity that must be respected. You wouldn't adapt Hamlet and turn him into a cocky race car driver, would you? (I probably shouldn't say that out loud.)
But Marvel may have another advantage in that their characters do have "cores" to stay true to:
Spider-Man: with great power comes great responsibility.
X-Men: being oppressed is no excuse to be evil.
Hulk: basically the Jeckyl/Hyde story.
Iron Man: being a drunk with a heart condition is no excuse to be a bastard. (Okay, this one is more down to Robert Downey Jr's personal charisma.)
Captain America: exploration of "American values" in which the simplistic values of the 1940s are being explored in the first movie, with the 21st C due to expand the theme (if my guess is correct).
Compared with these, only Batman has a core theme: is vigilantism justified? But what's Superman's theme? "Truth, justice and the American way" is a slogan, not a theme. What does it mean? And isn't Cap covering that territory better anyway? What's Green Lantern's theme? There's probably a good one, I just don't know the character well enough. Bet the movie ignored it, didn't it?
That's not a problem. Do people get confused by the fact that there are at least four different cops or soldiers in the world? Or, hey, at least four Jedis or Starfleet captains?
Why, then, must it mean that people are going to be confused by four Earthborn Green Lanterns?
One of the things I'm sickest of in comics is this "iconic" nonsense that's treated like an unbreakable paradigm, like that's the only thing people care about despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Icons are for graphic user interfaces and extremely bad paintings of Jesus, not for guaranteeing the marketability of a film.
I don't think GL has mass-market awareness at all. The general public is waiting to be told what he's all about, and why they should care. Ditto for Captain America. He's some guy in star-spangeled underoos, otherwise, he's a blank slate.
The difference is that Marvel knows what Cap is all about and put it on the screen. I assume there's some parallel element for GL - what he's all about - but I couldn't tell you what that is, and from all accounts, it didn't get onto the screen.
Green Lantern can be different things depending on which version. Hal Jordan was a jock test pilot and prototypical hero. John Stewart was an embittered army veteran and anti-authority figure. Kyle Rayner was a down-on-his-luck Peter Parker type. Guy Gardner was an asshole.
The responsible use of power. You may argue that's the core of every superhero but Superman is the oldest and the first to really embody and explore that theme.
Debatable. Half the country would love Cap and the other half probably wants The Punisher to put a bullet in his head for being a Muslim loving liberal.
It's that strength comes from willpower. The movie attempt to explore Hal's willingness to be a GL was appropriate but didn't make that connection with Hal's strong convictions and his worthiness to be a GL. Remember GL is the other hero with no fear.
I don't know if it is a theme exactly but the journey of how an alien the last of his race saved by the love of his dying parents, raised as a farm boy with good moral values who grows up to become the world's greatest hero should be and is a compelling story. I like the responsible use of power (that is kind of a Spider-Man theme as well). There are a number of core themes that Superman explores.
It's also one of the oldest. I mean how old is the Book of Exodus
. That being said his origin does reinforces his theme of using power responsibly. There is one difference with Spider-man. Superman embraces the whole "with great power comes great responsibility". Spider-man on the other hand is always struggles with it. Spider-man is such a compelling character because unlike other heroes, his powers are such a burden to him.
^ Yep. Very true.
Spider-Man's a more compelling character to me, because he's more relatable. he's a scrawny nerd who got picked on by the jocks and tries to do the right thing with his powers.
Superman's some lug in a cape and tights from another planet. with more powers than you can shake a stick at and a holier-than-thou attitude.
Superman's some lug in a cape and tights from another planet. with more powers than you can shake a stick at and a holier-than-thou attitude.
Even though he's been my favorite since I was a kid, I fully realize Superman is a tough one to crack. But to be honest, I always found characters like Thor and Tony Stark to be JUST as inscrutable and hard to relate to back then. A god of thunder from a distant world/dimension? A billionaire playboy with a drinking problem? I never quite knew what to make of those guys, and certainly couldn't identify with them.
Like most kids back then (and I suspect most moviegoers today), it really just came down to the fun stories and cool superpowers.
Like most kids back then (and I suspect most moviegoers today), it really just came down to the fun stories and cool superpowers.
Superman is always kind of a tough case because there's no real drama to him except that he's the last of his kind (at least, he's supposed to be). But he never knew his people, he was raised from infancy by the Kents on Earth, so he has no real emotional connection to Krypton or Jor-El. Clark had a pretty idyllic childhood; he grew up in a quiet, small town with two kind-hearted, well-adjusted people raising him as their own. Certainly, knowing where he came from should be an important part of his emotional journey, but he has no reason to want to know where he came from except that he knows he's not really from Smallville.
The Kents never mistreated Clark or gave him any impetus to discover his roots, he just does it because he wants to know why he has all these weird powers. And he never really has to work hard to uncover the truth; it's pretty much handed to him freely. The only real emotional thrust to Superman's character is that he's basically a god among insects, but even before Clark becomes Superman he's already learned the value of his strength and just how easily he could destroy everything if he really wanted to, so that's another dead end.
The Kents never mistreated Clark or gave him any impetus to discover his roots, he just does it because he wants to know why he has all these weird powers. And he never really has to work hard to uncover the truth; it's pretty much handed to him freely. The only real emotional thrust to Superman's character is that he's basically a god among insects, but even before Clark becomes Superman he's already learned the value of his strength and just how easily he could destroy everything if he really wanted to, so that's another dead end.
This is why I've always said that Supergirl is arguably a more compelling character. Superman treats Krypton like a hobby, whereas everyone she knew and loved died horribly, and the only other person from her entire species that remains doesn't act like her, talk like her, or think like her, and is virtually as alien as all the stupid, fragile apes that mill aimlessly around her new, far shittier planet.
It amazes me that no writer with any cachet has ever taken up this thread.
But see also J'onn J'onzz, I guess. His story's basically the same.
Maybe Silver Surfer, too. It really depends on when you're reading him, because sometimes everybody he knew on Zenn-La (including his beloved Shala Bal) is long dead, because he's an immortal Power Cosmic-fueled mass-murderer, and sometimes he's been Galactus' herald for like a week before he quits.
And people do like this story--at least they like the converse of it, as testified by the success of the Planet of the Apes and I Am Legend, The Omega Man, and I Am Legend.
Yminale said:It's also one of the oldest. I mean how old is the Book of Exodus
I like to pretend that Clark Kent is Jewish.
It makes more sense than the worship of Rao.
Yeah, but the general public had no idea who Jedis were until Star Wars came out, and they seemed to respond quite well.
Green Lantern is probably the easiest concept in comics to relate. "They're cops. They're space cops."
Flash ain't much harder.
It sells the audience so short when someone says "They'll never understand that there was this one Flash, and then there was another Flash." People cannot possibly be that stupid when daily life provides numerous examples of people easily understanding that very concept.
Well there's a moment in Birthright that I really love, where Clark is in the newsroom alone, overhearing all his colleagues talking shit about him at the bar across the street, and you can't help but really feel for the guy. And later, as all of Metropolis regards him as some bizarre alien freak, he still goes about saving them and sacrificing himself without a second thought.
That I thought sold the character better than anything else I've ever seen-- have him feel more like the alien outcast he is, and have the world regard him with a more realistic mixture of fear, wonder, and suspicion (which is probably the reaction a superbeing like him would get).
That gives him more to struggle against, and the audience more of a reason to root for him.
Similar threads
