Do Marvel's characters work better in movies than DC's?
- Thread starter Agenda
- Start date
No. Marvel just craps out more films, because their properties are split up and each studio has, at least, some rough game plan on what to do with them. The fact that each Marvel film reflects positively on Marvel only helps each other movie (regardless of studio). For example, you better believe that Fox is happy that Spider-Man does well, because that means they can market "Marvel" on the next X-Men movie to bring in more people who see that and make a connection.
DC, on the other hand, is pretty much all under one blanket with Warner Brothers, and they don't seem to really know what to do with their characters. They know Batman and Superman will sell, but are unsure of the others.
They decided to test the waters to expand with Green Lantern, and that really didn't work out. Now, while that didn't work had less to do with the character and more to do with the actual execution of the movie, I wouldn't be surprised if WB kneejerk reacts and thinks that the DC heroes are not going to sell well with audiences.
Just my two cents.
^ Broc pretty much hit it on the nail.
Cant believe it took this long just to test the waters. What's that? 6 Batman movies and 5 Superman movies before they broke the mold and went with somebody else?
I don't have anything terribly substantive to add after Broccoli's succinct post, but I think Batman has repeatedly shown himself to work really well in movies, arguably better than any other comic book superhero.
I miss most of the Marvel films, but are any of them really making the kind of splash The Dark Knight and Batman Begins did? There's more of them but how many exactly are floating up in that stratosphere, and have any superceded Nolan's Batflicks? A quantity/quality issue, if you will.
I miss most of the Marvel films, but are any of them really making the kind of splash The Dark Knight and Batman Begins did? There's more of them but how many exactly are floating up in that stratosphere, and have any superceded Nolan's Batflicks? A quantity/quality issue, if you will.
Ah yes Shaq Fu. And still in the realm of Superman, although I think the movie didn't even acknowledge Supes at all.
I would argue that Batman Begins, when it was released and afterward (before TDK) was received about as well as any of the Avengers-Marvel movies.
TDK, I think, is an anomaly. As morbid as it is to say this, I really feel one of the main reasons it did so well financially was due to Heath Ledger's death. Yes, the movie would have been critically praised, regardless. Ledger's death, though, gave the film a extra and unintended marketing and drew people who would otherwise have not gone to see a Batman film.
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.
WB also has a tendency to imitate whatever comic book-based (or comic booky) movie was most recently a hit until either they drain the well the well dry or someone "accidentally" makes a movie that breaks the mold and does well.
Case in point:
The original Reeve Superman films were supposed to be relatively low budget and campy. The only reason they weren't is because "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters" changed the game.
The first several drafts of the 1980s Batman film were by people that worked on the Reeve Superman films and were nearly beat for beat identical to the first Superman movie. They also had a bit of the old West camp in them.
In fact, I think half the reason Burton got hired was the idea that the Beetlejuice guy would make a cartoonish film. Obviously, that didn't happen (in no small part due to Sam Hamm's script).
After Burton's Batman came out, everything was to be Burtonesque, including the Flash TV show and the aborted Burton Superman movie.
When Batman needed a reboot they went to Goyer, who had recently had a hit with the Blade movies. Fortunately, they also got Nolan so that worked out.
When Superman needed a reboot they went to Singer, who had successfully done two X-movies for Marvel. When that didn't work out, they immediately decided it needed more Nolan (because Superman and Batman are so similar) and hired him to produce.
Now, with GL a failure, the producers are talking about making another, darker and more down to earth, GL movie. Why? Because Batman is currently their big hit maker.
Marvel, on the other hand, seems to be a little more willing to do films that aren't as derivative of what just came before. Cap wasn't just like Thor which wasn't just like Iron Man which wasn't just like FF (thank god) which wasn't just like Spiderman which wasn't just like X-men which wasn't just like Blade. And even the films in the shared universe have flourishes that make them stand out from the others.
Of course, for years, Marvel had the luxury of being independent and getting to have some control over what studios made their movies. Now that Disney owns them it may be interesting to see if the start having more problems keeping each character unique and playing the character's strengths.
Case in point:
The original Reeve Superman films were supposed to be relatively low budget and campy. The only reason they weren't is because "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters" changed the game.
The first several drafts of the 1980s Batman film were by people that worked on the Reeve Superman films and were nearly beat for beat identical to the first Superman movie. They also had a bit of the old West camp in them.
In fact, I think half the reason Burton got hired was the idea that the Beetlejuice guy would make a cartoonish film. Obviously, that didn't happen (in no small part due to Sam Hamm's script).
After Burton's Batman came out, everything was to be Burtonesque, including the Flash TV show and the aborted Burton Superman movie.
When Batman needed a reboot they went to Goyer, who had recently had a hit with the Blade movies. Fortunately, they also got Nolan so that worked out.
When Superman needed a reboot they went to Singer, who had successfully done two X-movies for Marvel. When that didn't work out, they immediately decided it needed more Nolan (because Superman and Batman are so similar) and hired him to produce.
Now, with GL a failure, the producers are talking about making another, darker and more down to earth, GL movie. Why? Because Batman is currently their big hit maker.
Marvel, on the other hand, seems to be a little more willing to do films that aren't as derivative of what just came before. Cap wasn't just like Thor which wasn't just like Iron Man which wasn't just like FF (thank god) which wasn't just like Spiderman which wasn't just like X-men which wasn't just like Blade. And even the films in the shared universe have flourishes that make them stand out from the others.
Of course, for years, Marvel had the luxury of being independent and getting to have some control over what studios made their movies. Now that Disney owns them it may be interesting to see if the start having more problems keeping each character unique and playing the character's strengths.
Yeah, I'm with Broccoli, my impression is that TW are unsure of what they're doing.
In fairness, though, Marvel's licensees have made more shitty movies in terms of absolute numbers, and perhaps more as a percentage.
In fairness, though, Marvel's licensees have made more shitty movies in terms of absolute numbers, and perhaps more as a percentage.
Anyone remember the days when pretty much any Marvel-based media was guaranteed to be low-budget crap? Incredible Hulk excepted.
I don't think it has anything to do with the characters. I just think Marvel has been MUCH more committed to getting their characters on screen (hell, they made two Hulk movies and two Punisher movies, for christs sake). And it's not like every movie of theirs has been a massive hit. Some do just okay, and still seem to get a sequel.
If Warners put out that many movies with THEIR characters, I'm sure the ratio of good to bad would be about the same. But for some reason they just don't seem that interested.
If Warners put out that many movies with THEIR characters, I'm sure the ratio of good to bad would be about the same. But for some reason they just don't seem that interested.
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
Nah I think it's purely a screenwriting issue.
In fairness, unless it was Superman or Batman, many of the superhero films back then were low budget crap.
Three. Three Punisher movies!! All unrelated to each other!
Broc hit it on the head above, as a couple of others have.
Green Lantern is the DC film I've wanted made for years. It was a mess. You could tell Warners was trying so hard to be like Iron Man and the Marvel movies. GL was the Justin Hammer to the Iron Man/Thor's Tony Stark. A damn wannabe. And yes, rather than blame the execution of the film, I fear that WB will buy into the myth that their characters aren't 'relatable'.
As if a filthy rich guy who's spent years training in all sorts of fields, dressing up as a bat with all sorts of super gadgets and fighting crime is.
Green Lantern is the DC film I've wanted made for years. It was a mess. You could tell Warners was trying so hard to be like Iron Man and the Marvel movies. GL was the Justin Hammer to the Iron Man/Thor's Tony Stark. A damn wannabe. And yes, rather than blame the execution of the film, I fear that WB will buy into the myth that their characters aren't 'relatable'.
As if a filthy rich guy who's spent years training in all sorts of fields, dressing up as a bat with all sorts of super gadgets and fighting crime is.
I think Marvel just got lucky and had the right people in the right place at the right time, i.e. Singer to "re-launch" superhero movies and Avi Arad to hold the reigns and control everything.
They progressed well but only because the foundations were good and they managed to produce several hits that offset the stinkers (Iron Man vs. Elektra for example).
DC lacks this initial start.. Batman was an exemption because of a brilliant director and a very good cast plus awesome scripts. However that "streak" will end with the third Batman movie and nobody nows if the new Superman movie will knock it out of the park but nevertheless DC will have to start over again and re-evaluate their properties and how to develop them.
What they would need are directors and writers who are also fans of the material and at the same time take it serious enough to make a good movie. It's not enough to blow half the budget on big effects and the other half on big name actors but you also need a decent story and many studious just don't take this part serious enough with comicbook adaptations.
DC will fail until they learn that lesson, Marvel has to some degree and i'm curious if Avengers will really be the big payoff everyone has been working towards or it will be just a huge CGI slugfest in which case i'll be severely disappointed.
They progressed well but only because the foundations were good and they managed to produce several hits that offset the stinkers (Iron Man vs. Elektra for example).
DC lacks this initial start.. Batman was an exemption because of a brilliant director and a very good cast plus awesome scripts. However that "streak" will end with the third Batman movie and nobody nows if the new Superman movie will knock it out of the park but nevertheless DC will have to start over again and re-evaluate their properties and how to develop them.
What they would need are directors and writers who are also fans of the material and at the same time take it serious enough to make a good movie. It's not enough to blow half the budget on big effects and the other half on big name actors but you also need a decent story and many studious just don't take this part serious enough with comicbook adaptations.
DC will fail until they learn that lesson, Marvel has to some degree and i'm curious if Avengers will really be the big payoff everyone has been working towards or it will be just a huge CGI slugfest in which case i'll be severely disappointed.
I don't really think Marvel lucked out...maybe on some projects but they went after the talent they wanted and got that talent that was able to execute the films in a way that has for the most part entertained audiences. DC has failed to do that with the exception of the Nolan Batman films (if we're talking exclusively of the last fifteen years or so). It shouldn't matter that Marvel has a jump on them or not, this isn't a race, it's about putting out decent and entertaining films.
"Green Lantern" was supposed to be the start of a bold new era for DC Entertainment which unfortunately blew up in their faces. Now they're leaning on Superman again but thanks to an already jaded fan base which a portion of wasn't thrilled with "Superman Returns" are already nervous about "Man of Steel". I think Diane Nelson along with Geoff Johns and the rest of DC Ent's brass really have to take a look at the properties that they have and figure out how to execute their characters in a way that will entertain audiences. So far it would seem they've failed to do that, while Marvel has managed to be successful.
"Green Lantern" was supposed to be the start of a bold new era for DC Entertainment which unfortunately blew up in their faces. Now they're leaning on Superman again but thanks to an already jaded fan base which a portion of wasn't thrilled with "Superman Returns" are already nervous about "Man of Steel". I think Diane Nelson along with Geoff Johns and the rest of DC Ent's brass really have to take a look at the properties that they have and figure out how to execute their characters in a way that will entertain audiences. So far it would seem they've failed to do that, while Marvel has managed to be successful.
I largely agree with this sentiment. I think there is something encoded in most Marvel characters which make them easier to translate to the screen. Just like Marvel has long dominated DC among readers, their characters for the most part are more relatable, with flaws that people understand. And they are interesting inside and outside the suit.
DC has lagged behind in terms of bringing their characters in the modern era. Their attempts have been more fitful. And DC doesn't play up what their characters do have, the iconic, mythological angle.
I don't disagree with the other things the other posters said, though I think the character issue is one of the factors in the gap between the companies. I think Marvel has been more committed to putting out their films than DC has been and Marvel properties are spread among several movie houses (all chasing though comic book movie dollars) whereas DC is relegated to WB and has to compete with the slate of other WB films. And Marvel has been far more willing to experiment and be innovative with the Avengers team-up idea.
It's strange but on the small screen DC has it all over Marvel. Their animation is far superior and they do well rendering their characters there. And Superman has been extremely successful on screen. Lois & Clark and Smallville, whether you love it or hate it, did make Clark Kent an accessible character, something that has been hard to do for decades. I'm scratching my head about why they haven't been able to take the talent from the animation division and get them to write or produce the live-action films.
Thing is, Superman is the only DC character that's been truly successful in live-action TV in the modern era. Yes, Smallville was a hit and lasted for 10 seasons. But Birds of Prey failed and both Wonder Woman and Aquaman were aborted. I think Marvel's success has been worse in live action (though interestingly Mutant X was a Marvel property - of course it kinda sucked and was cancelled after 3 seasons).
I agree that DC has had superior quality in animation. However, Marvel's success with audiences when it comes to Spider-Man and the X-Men is nothing to sneeze at either. I think DC has it easier in a way because they're able to easily put their greatest heroes all in one high profile basket (Batman + Superman + the rest of the Justice League or Super Friends). Marvel usually operates in a universe primarily involving Spider-Man, X-Men, FF, and the Avengers. These groups often co-mingle, but aren't usually together.
I agree that DC has had superior quality in animation. However, Marvel's success with audiences when it comes to Spider-Man and the X-Men is nothing to sneeze at either. I think DC has it easier in a way because they're able to easily put their greatest heroes all in one high profile basket (Batman + Superman + the rest of the Justice League or Super Friends). Marvel usually operates in a universe primarily involving Spider-Man, X-Men, FF, and the Avengers. These groups often co-mingle, but aren't usually together.
Similar threads
