Do Marvel's characters work better in movies than DC's?

[Skywalker]

Again, though, the drama's already gone, because Superman has already chosen to go about saving them and sacrificing himself for them without a second thought. He does it even before people regard him with fear, wonder, and suspicion. He never once thinks "Screw it, I shouldn't be helping these ingrates," because that's not in his programming, so to speak. Sure, that makes him heroic, but it also makes him boring.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Compared with these, only Batman has a core theme: is vigilantism justified? But what's Superman's theme?

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.

Then the problem is that Spider-Man has already grabbed that territory, and Supes is going to seem like he's playing catchup. It's more fun to see that theme enacted by a scrawny underdog compared with an impervious alien.

"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?

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.

Won't be the first time that Hollywood has made a librul-skewing movie. At least now they have a good excuse of staying true to the source material. And the Fox News crowd gets the fun of having Robert Downey Jr as their spokesperson. Imagine if Tony Stark were running against Obama...brr...he'd be a far bigger threat that the current crowd.

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 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.

"Strength comes from willpower" sounds a bit Nazi-esque to make a good theme for a sympathetic character. Captain America's theme of "strength comes from goodness" is a bit easier to envision as the driving force for a palatable story. How should GL's theme have been delivered? Does he start out as a vacillating weakling and learn the value of willpower, or what?

And how can a character who has no fear be relatable? Doesn't that quality make him seem too distant for humans to relate to? If he has no fear, then he has no courage, since courage only happens through overcoming fear. A character without fear would just be a machine.

Again, though, the drama's already gone, because Superman has already chosen to go about saving them and sacrificing himself for them without a second thought. He does it even before people regard him with fear, wonder, and suspicion. He never once thinks "Screw it, I shouldn't be helping these ingrates," because that's not in his programming, so to speak. Sure, that makes him heroic, but it also makes him boring.

Unless Supes has the option of saying "screw it," then he can't get credit for doing the right thing - he literally has no choice. He might as well be Super Rescue Robot.

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.

I've read the argument that Superman is simply a Jewish immigrant story, and there's some truth to that, but the fact of his immigrant-ness isn't really part of the story. Maybe it could be: he's a big hero, then people don't accept him because they learn he's an alien, and only grow to appreciate him because he responds to their suspicions with generosity and big-heartedness, or something along those lines. But there does need to be a sense that he'd have the option to say "screw it."

 

[Nerys Myk]

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.

Patriot Cap, Crazy Cap, Walker Cap,Bucky Cap, Rhodey Iron Man, Masterson Thor, Spider Clones, Johnny Human Torch, Namora, Namorita, Maddie Jean, Rachel Phoenix, Hawkeye Girl, Children from alternate realities, Foster Giant-Man, Rita Yellowjacket, Lang Ant-Man, O'Grady Ant-Man, Vision 2.0.... Yeah, no legacies or character with the same powers floating around the MU. As for reboots and continuity issues...How are Mr and Mrs Peter Parker doing? Which X-Men are still dead...er. alive...no, dead.

Iron Man was not created in RDJ'd image. It was long journey to get him to that point. He was a rich guy with a heart condition, not an alchoholic with snappy one liners.

 

[Yminale]

Then the problem is that Spider-Man has already grabbed that territory, and Supes is going to seem like he's playing catchup. It's more fun to see that theme enacted by a scrawny underdog compared with an impervious alien.

For a country as cynical as America, it's hard to see why we love Superman but we love Superman. Part of what people like with Superman is the timelessness of his moral character (aka he's safe and boring). Superman and Captain America are just intrinsically Good. No matter what happened to them they would always be good people. Batman, Spiderman and Iron Man are good through circumstance. Would Bruce Wayne be a crime fighter if his parents weren't killed in a street robbery. Would Peter Parker be a superhero if his actions didn't cause the death of Uncle Ben. You are right that part of the fun of Spider-man is that we can easily envision ourselves as Spider-man with all his problems, But we also want an escape from reality hence the wish fulfillment of Superman.

Imagine if Tony Stark were running against Obama...brr...he'd be a far bigger threat that the current crowd.

Well Tony Stark in the movies at least is basically Al Gore with superpowers and a hotter girlfriend.

"Strength comes from willpower" sounds a bit Nazi-esque to make a good theme for a sympathetic character.

Well I'll never argue that GL is a sympathetic character. Anyway Termis you are confusing Nazis rhetoric for the reality. Nazis may be all in to the Triumph of the Will BS but what drove them was hate and fear, the complete opposite of the GL corp. GL's are suppose to be more like Shaolin monks or Jedi Knights. People through extraordinary discipline that can achieve superhuman acts.

And how can a character who has no fear be relatable? Doesn't that quality make him seem too distant for humans to relate to? If he has no fear, then he has no courage, since courage only happens through overcoming fear. A character without fear would just be a machine.

You basically summarized all the weak points of classic Hal Jordan. That's why we had all these other people as Green Lantern. That being said you have to take the notion that the GL corp are literally intergalactic beat cops. For cops courage is great but discipline is more important. There is a certain a truth to the point that courage can make you as irrational as fear can.

 

[Anwar]

Well, Daredevil is also supposed to be a "Man with no fear" for his creed and no one holds it against him...

 

[23skidoo]

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.

You forget that Marvel has had a number of successful animated series over the years, but you're correct regarding live action. I just don't think live action films have been a priority for DC. They're more content at trying to do TV - the success of Smallville and the animated Superman and Batman series of the 1990s make that clear. We'll also include the DCU Animated films since they're made for DVD, ergo, for television.

Marvel's priority isn't TV, it's the movies. They've done a few very successful animated shows like X-Men, but that's it. And they haven't really bothered with live-action TV other than Blade (oh, and that Spider-Man TV series of the 1970s, remember it? They also did 2 pilot TV movies for Captain America that went nowhere). Ironically I remember in the late 1980s and into the 1990s Marvel couldn't get a live-action film franchise off the ground for love nor money, producing instead a pair of ultra-cheap, direct-to-video-in-Singapore films. There was a Fantastic Four film and either a Spider-Man or Captain America film ... they're so obscure the Mythbusters could probably do a segment as to whether they ever actually existed.

I think if DC put as much effort into making films as it does making TV shows there'd be a lot more Dark Knights out there. But they've decided to go for a quality vs. quantity approach, clearly. Whether they're successful in the quality department is a matter of debate, of course. But if they really wanted to do a Justice League movie, I don't see anything stopping them. Though I'll echo what someone else says in this thread, I'd rather see them put out a DCU animated film for theatres.

Alex

 

[Myasishchev]

Well, Daredevil is also supposed to be a "Man with no fear" for his creed and no one holds it against him...

That was clearly aspirational language, though.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

For a country as cynical as America, it's hard to see why we love Superman but we love Superman.

America isn't cynical. Probably would be better if America were a bit more cynical and not so damn trusting of every snake oil salesman who comes down the pike.

The problem with Supes is that he has zero personality. Sure, you could write a personality for him, but that lays open the danger of some godawful Hollywood reimagining of him as a snarky, hip type.

And from your description, I might have been wrong in assuming Green Lantern was ever a good character to base a movie on. I still have no sense why that character ever became popular. At best, the Green Lanterns have the same problem that the Jedi do - intergalactic cops aren't inherently sympathetic, so you still have to do the work of making them sympathetic. The PT is an object lesson of the train wreck you get when you don't.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Silver Age DC was about plot and story not character. None of those heroes had character beyond squarejawed hero type. You read their books to see them defeat badguys and be clever doing it. Marvel changed the game when they introduce Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four.

 

[Gaith]

Do Marvel's characters work better in movies than DC's?


Yes.


Hugs,
Gaith

 

[Admiral_Young]

@Temis...you say that Superman doesn't have any personality. What experience with the character do you have that would make you claim that? I've been a Superman fan since I was a kid and would disagree with that statement. Superman has dual personalities. The one he pushes to the public as Superman. Clark Kent's public persona which is the clumsy doofus, then we have the man that Martha and Jonathon raised who is the real person behind the façade.

I'm actually curious what you would suggest would make a good Superman movie.

 

[Broccoli]

The problem with Supes is that he has zero personality.

What a misguided assessment. Every character has a personality. It may not be a personality you like or prefer, but he still has one.

 

[davejames]

Silver Age DC was about plot and story not character. None of those heroes had character beyond squarejawed hero type. You read their books to see them defeat badguys and be clever doing it. Marvel changed the game when they introduce Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four.

Maybe it's just because I grew up on DC, but that's an aspect I actually kinda miss in today's comics. Not that some good characterization isn't important, but whatever happened to superheroes being clever and outwitting the bad guys?

Now it seems like it all just comes down to a big battle of strength and who can survive the longest in a punching contest.

 

[DarKush]

23skidoo,

My bad. I was focused on the live-action TV output from Marvel. But you are right. Marvel has had some animated success, with the Spider-Man 60's show, Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends, Fox's Spider-Man, Fox's X-Men. X-Men Evolution, Spectacular Spider-Man, and Wolverine and the X-Men I guess were successful? And now we have Superhero Squad and Avengers. And there have been Hulk, Fantastic Four, and Iron Man cartoons. Now we have the Blade, X-Men, and Iron Man anime series. So there has been more output than I've given credit for. I think DC's have generally been more successful and of higher quality.

As for DC putting quality before quantity in their movies, I can sorta of see that. I could see what you mean with the Nolan films, even the high concept take on Superman Returns, and putting out Watchmen and V for Vendetta. But it seems to me there is a skittishness or perhaps a lack of vision for putting out more of their superhero line as opposed to doing these one off, more obscure properties. And surely some might not consider Jonah Hex or The Losers quality films, though I didn't think they were all that bad.

 

[OdoWanKenobi]

And from your description, I might have been wrong in assuming Green Lantern was ever a good character to base a movie on. I still have no sense why that character ever became popular. At best, the Green Lanterns have the same problem that the Jedi do - intergalactic cops aren't inherently sympathetic, so you still have to do the work of making them sympathetic. The PT is an object lesson of the train wreck you get when you don't.

Which is what the movie got so wrong. Green Lantern, at least in my opinion, has always been at its best when it focused less on Hal Jordan and more on the various members of the Corp. Despite being the "main" Green Lantern, Hal has always been the dullest. He's just a traditional hero, and only ever had any real depth when he was famously paired with Green Arrow. Even that story was mostly Green Arrow showing him just how wrong most of his views on the world were.

The best Green Lantern stories are the epic space opera ones. Characters like Guy, crude but loyal, John, bitter and tortured, Kyle, thrust into this by fate and must overcome fear instead of being fearless, or the many other interesting alien members of the Corp. What about a character like Soranik Natu? One of the previous owners of her ring was a villain who conquered the planet with it, and who is seen as Hitler by his people, and the symbol of the Green Lanterns as a swastika. Her struggle to deal with the hatred she receives from her own people for wearing the ring was a compelling story in the comics. Hal? Hal is just boring and lifeless compared to all of these other people. He's Mr. Perfect.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I think the TDK effect then went back and gave Batman Begins a renewed "This movie is the FUCKING AWESOMENESS!!@!!!" when it didn't really have one on the outset.

I don't agree with that. But I do think people liked Batman Begins a lot because they were comparing it to Batman and Robin. If anything, I think Batman Begins dropped in esteem after The Dark Knight just because that movie was so well-made.

Anyway, I think DC's problem is its big two are so big it overshadowed the rest. Marvel had many solid franchises that allowed the others to breathe. When they get turned into movies, there's better name recognition (Thor easily has the least, but it got to ride on the success of the Marvel movies surrounding it so people gave it more of a chance).

Green Lantern is probably the easiest concept in comics to relate. "They're cops. They're space cops."

If that's the case, maybe an origin story is a bad idea. Just have him established and part of a team. Then have him work to do his part to save Earth, but as part of a bigger plot across the galaxy.

ETA: Reading through the thread, it appears I was just beat on the idea. I'm not overly familiar with Green Lantern and it occurred to me that it would be the way to go (I agree that Hal Jordan himself isn't all that interesting - I think that's clear just from people who describe him). It's a shame that's not what they did. Maybe if they did a second movie, they'd have better luck (but I get the impression it would just be like the Fantastic Four movies).

 

[Broccoli]

I think the TDK effect then went back and gave Batman Begins a renewed "This movie is the FUCKING AWESOMENESS!!@!!!" when it didn't really have one on the outset.

I don't agree with that. But I do think people liked Batman Begins a lot because they were comparing it to Batman and Robin. If anything, I think Batman Begins dropped in esteem after The Dark Knight just because that movie was so well-made.

You misunderstand. People liked Batman Begins a lot when it first came out. That is not in question. However, I don't think it was the sensation (at that time) it is now made out to be. There was a change in attitude towards it when TDK came out that started to cause people to rank it higher than they did when it first came out.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Yeah, but I disagree with that. I think they started to rank it lower. No one complained about the machine that could evaporate water until after TDK (at least in my experience).

 

[DarKush]

And from your description, I might have been wrong in assuming Green Lantern was ever a good character to base a movie on. I still have no sense why that character ever became popular. At best, the Green Lanterns have the same problem that the Jedi do - intergalactic cops aren't inherently sympathetic, so you still have to do the work of making them sympathetic. The PT is an object lesson of the train wreck you get when you don't.

Which is what the movie got so wrong. Green Lantern, at least in my opinion, has always been at its best when it focused less on Hal Jordan and more on the various members of the Corp. Despite being the "main" Green Lantern, Hal has always been the dullest. He's just a traditional hero, and only ever had any real depth when he was famously paired with Green Arrow. Even that story was mostly Green Arrow showing him just how wrong most of his views on the world were.

The best Green Lantern stories are the epic space opera ones. Characters like Guy, crude but loyal, John, bitter and tortured, Kyle, thrust into this by fate and must overcome fear instead of being fearless, or the many other interesting alien members of the Corp. What about a character like Soranik Natu? One of the previous owners of her ring was a villain who conquered the planet with it, and who is seen as Hitler by his people, and the symbol of the Green Lanterns as a swastika. Her struggle to deal with the hatred she receives from her own people for wearing the ring was a compelling story in the comics. Hal? Hal is just boring and lifeless compared to all of these other people. He's Mr. Perfect.

I wouldn't say that Hal is completely boring. After reading Emerald Dawn, the 90's reboot of Hal's origin, he was an alcoholic screw up. And Geoff Johns added family strife and made him a bit of a reckless hothead in Secret Origin. So there have been attempts to add depth to Jordan's characters over the last 20 years at least. There was something to work there for the feature film, but the family strife and screw up angles were barely touched on. I do agree that one of the best aspects of the Green Lantern comics is the Corps. It is filled with so many different personalities. Even making Hal the straight guy playing off against some of the more colorful Corps members would've worked if they had focused more on the Corps members.

 

[DarthPipes]

Maybe they should have had Hal find his girlfriend in a freezer.

I always thought the public knew the DC characters better because of the old Justice League cartoon. Who doesn't know The Flash and Hawkman for instance? But I think Marvel has done a better job getting their characters out there and maybe making them more relatable. X-Men has been a brand they've been working on for twenty years with the cartoons and all the merchandise.

Warner Brothers really dropped the ball on GL. That was their first non-Superman/Batman movie and they presented a steaming pile of shit. Ryan Reynolds is not a good actor and he wasn't the right choice for this role. He's only capable of playing the same role in every movie.

I think Batman Begins was well-regarded, especially when compared to Batman and Robin. I do think it gained in stature because of The Dark Knight. I've always wondered, despite how good he was in the role, if Ledger would have gotten all the Oscar buzz he got if he hadn't of died.

The failure of Green Lantern has hurt the chance for Warner Brothers to create a shared universe for the DC characters I think.