Marvel's 'Avengers' Success: What Can DC Comics Learn From It?

[Johnny Rico]

DC can do it but a JLA movie would be years away from now and they'd have to set-up characters the same way Marvel did and, like you said, it'd seem like a retread of Marvel's actions.

Problem is they'd have to have good movies to setup their JLA characters. The Nolan/Bale Batman universe is out since it's over with TDKR and has stood alone.

This leaves the upcoming "Man of Steel" which may end up doing okay but that's a year away from proving one way or another. The next Batman "reboot" series of movies would have to follow in Man of Steel's footsteps in staying somewhat consistent in tone and in establishing a single "world" and itself work out well.

Then we've got the two "big" DC heroes for a JLA movie. Now a DC-CU has to establish more DC characters to put in a DCU and the ones they'd have to do to make it worthwhile is probably Wonder Woman and Aquaman.

Getting a Wonder Woman anything has been a mess over the last few years and, again, they'd have to make a successful movie that keeps in tone with a building universe.

Aquaman could also be done but now with him you'd have to overcome a lot of pre-conceived notions about him and his abilities that are out there thanks to "Super Friends." I think AM could be done but it'd have a lot to overcome. With Aquaman you could also bring in a secondary with Mera.

Then there's Green Lantern. His movie hardly set anyone on fire as it had mixed reaction. So it'd either need a Hulk-like soft reboot or a sequel to do "damage control" and to better fit with any tone the other movies tried to establish.

Being much more a DC guy I'd love to see a DC/JLA movie but, man, it'd be several years away and that's assuming DC has a plan now and can execute it well. They'd have to have good writers and directors set-up.

This is what Marvel did very, very well. They took comic book characters I didn't care about and gave them all good movies. I pretty much got drug to Iron Man and ended up loving it. I found Thor to be lame and just way "out there" and ended up liking the movie, I find Captain America to be way out of time (we're hardly "Rah! Rah! Go America!" anymore these days) and also pretty lame (let's face it, he was pretty much a WWII American-propaganda machine) and he had a great movie. Hulk had two lame movies which I chalked up to him being a character that doesn't work well on his own in a film format with how Marvel wanted to use him.

Marvel took all of these characters and made great movies for them and really established a universe. They did it with great writing, casting and directing.

WB/DC could do the same thing but they might need to really examine how Marvel did it and then try to get as close as possible without trying to duplicate it. Because if they try and to duplicate it they'll fail, it'll come-off as a rip-off.

They need to try and do it on their own way, make a coherent and cohesive universe and they need to start it now. And with any luck, we'll maybe have a JLA movie and Avengers 2 in 2016.

Pretty much agree there, but I'd add just one thing. What made Avengers work, (and I haven't even seen the film yet), is that each of the set-up films connected in someway to show that each film established each hero into this time-line as opposed to say using the original Ang Lee Hulk movie. Without connecting each film, usually by showing a Nick Fury appearance, the Avenger film may not have worked so well.

The problem DC has is that they've behind on the film front for a LONG time. I mean, what characters have they done? Batman, Superman, and last year's Green Lantern? Not exactly a large track record. And none of them tying into one another. Each JLA character needs a rebboot film (or 2) to establish a connected time-line/universe. Otherwise you'll just have a bunch of disconnected and discombobulated films that have nothing to do with one another. That being said, is that why has each Hulk film had a recast of Bruce Banner? Was Ed Norton not available this time? Not that the new guy is bad or nothing, but even he has joked that if there's a new Hulk film that he can't guarantee that he'll be Banner.

Oh, and one more problem with DC-CU is that most of their characters have some sort of F/X superpower. Not saying that that anything isn't possible with today's CG technology, but how do you not laughingly do something with The Flash? This is kind of why DC-CU has worked better in the animation realm. Hell, I wouldn't mind seeing a CG animated JLA series akin to what has been done with Clone Wars, but with slightly more realistic looking character designs.

 

[Kegg]

(Really, considering that Batman was created in 1939 yet The Dark Knight was the biggest film of 2008, I don't know how anyone could conceivably argue that reto superheroes don't work.

The Batman film was set in the present day, though. It's not retro - while Sky Captain (of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow), who was invented only in the last decade, was definitely the star of a very retro film.

Really it's all about content. If you want to still anchor your character in the 1940s fighting Nazis, then one might have a retro sheen.

 

[Sci]

(Really, considering that Batman was created in 1939 yet The Dark Knight was the biggest film of 2008, I don't know how anyone could conceivably argue that reto superheroes don't work.

The Batman film was set in the present day, though.

So are most of the so-called "retro" superheroes. Superman Returns was very definitely set in 2006 (especially vis a vis the unspoken 9/11 references -- "It's been five years," etc.). Yet that was considered a "retro" superhero movie.

 

[Harvey]

That being said, is that why has each Hulk film had a recast of Bruce Banner? Was Ed Norton not available this time? Not that the new guy is bad or nothing, but even he has joked that if there's a new Hulk film that he can't guarantee that he'll be Banner.

Marvel claims that Norton wanted too much creative control, but it was probably a disagreement over money. Ruffalo will be Banner for a while now; I believe he signed an eight film contract when he did The Avengers.

 

[Talosian]

(Really, considering that Batman was created in 1939 yet The Dark Knight was the biggest film of 2008, I don't know how anyone could conceivably argue that reto superheroes don't work.

The Batman film was set in the present day, though.

So are most of the so-called "retro" superheroes. Superman Returns was very definitely set in 2006 (especially vis a vis the unspoken 9/11 references -- "It's been five years," etc.). Yet that was considered a "retro" superhero movie.

Retro works because the present day, quite frankly, isn't very futuristic. This is why Superman Returns could be both nostalgic and invoking of post-war America and contemporary at the same time. Sure, Lois had a modern mobile phone, but strip us of our computers and cell phones and America isn't that different from the nation of our fathers. Of course, this is ultimately damning of the current generation and of our technological and political stagnation, but that's another matter entirely.

 

[Sci]

The Batman film was set in the present day, though.

So are most of the so-called "retro" superheroes. Superman Returns was very definitely set in 2006 (especially vis a vis the unspoken 9/11 references -- "It's been five years," etc.). Yet that was considered a "retro" superhero movie.

Retro works because the present day, quite frankly, isn't very futuristic. This is why Superman Returns could be both nostalgic and invoking of post-war America and contemporary at the same time. Sure, Lois had a modern mobile phone, but strip us of our computers and cell phones and America isn't that different from the nation of our fathers.

I have no idea what the hell America you live in if you think the United States today is not vastly, vastly different than it was in 1945.

 

[Star Wolf]

So are most of the so-called "retro" superheroes. Superman Returns was very definitely set in 2006 (especially vis a vis the unspoken 9/11 references -- "It's been five years," etc.). Yet that was considered a "retro" superhero movie.

Retro works because the present day, quite frankly, isn't very futuristic. This is why Superman Returns could be both nostalgic and invoking of post-war America and contemporary at the same time. Sure, Lois had a modern mobile phone, but strip us of our computers and cell phones and America isn't that different from the nation of our fathers.

I have no idea what the hell America you live in if you think the United States today is not vastly, vastly different than it was in 1945.

Not the Captain America/Avengers movies America

 

[hyzmarca]

(Really, considering that Batman was created in 1939 yet The Dark Knight was the biggest film of 2008, I don't know how anyone could conceivably argue that reto superheroes don't work.

The Batman film was set in the present day, though. It's not retro - while Sky Captain (of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow), who was invented only in the last decade, was definitely the star of a very retro film.

Really it's all about content. If you want to still anchor your character in the 1940s fighting Nazis, then one might have a retro sheen.

Retro is about more than just the dates. It's also about a style. If you've got blimps and spaceships tha tlook like giant glaming dildoes, then it's retro, even if it's set in 2008.

Batman Begins certain has a vaguely film-noir art style that is best described as retro. It's not quite as extreme as the Batman: The Animated Series with it's blimps and tommy guns, but it is there. Batman Begins could have easily taken place in the 1930s with no change to the aesthetics.

 

[Sci]

Retro works because the present day, quite frankly, isn't very futuristic. This is why Superman Returns could be both nostalgic and invoking of post-war America and contemporary at the same time. Sure, Lois had a modern mobile phone, but strip us of our computers and cell phones and America isn't that different from the nation of our fathers.

I have no idea what the hell America you live in if you think the United States today is not vastly, vastly different than it was in 1945.

Not the Captain America/Avengers movies America

The man in charge of the Helicarrier has brown skin. This would not have happened in 1945 -- not even the admittedly unrealistic 1945 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Even the Marvel Movieverse America is a vastly different country than it was in the 40s.

 

[Harvey]

The Marvel (movie) Universe gave Captain America an integrated unit during World War II, so it hasn't exactly been aiming at realism on that front.

 

[Star Wolf]

The Marvel (movie) Universe gave Captain America an integrated unit during World War II, so it hasn't exactly been aiming at realism on that front.

Along with the War Bond tour audiences and the other Regular Army units they may or may not have been assigned to the Strategic Scientific Reserve. So when the other Howling Commandos accepted fellow prisoners, Black and Japanese specifically as comrades it lacked any emotional appeal besides they were all normal, non-elite soldiers, ex-POWs chosen by Captain America personally because they fought with him and were not the ones who saw him as a Hollywood joke.

Segregation did not exist , we saw little of "normal Nazis" I can only assume other things for the time period were white washed away.

 

[JD]

I never understood the complaint about no real Nazis in the CA movie, because we did see real Nazi when The Red Skull killed the Nazi's sent to meet with him. And at the same time I kind of assumed that the idea behind the group Steve was part of, was that they dealt with the more unusual stuff like Hydra, while the rest of the army fought the regular Nazis.

 

[Skywalker]

I never understood the complaint about no real Nazis in the CA movie, because we did see real Nazi when The Red Skull killed the Nazi's sent to meet with him. And at the same time I kind of assumed that the idea behind the group Steve was part of, was that they dealt with the more unusual stuff like Hydra, while the rest of the army fought the regular Nazis.

Yeah, that's what I always figured, too. I'm pretty sure Colonel Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones' character) even mentioned at one point that the Strategic Scientific Reserve was leaving for Europe to combat HYDRA directly. So while Cap probably fought regular Nazi enemies on occasion, the majority of his time was probably spent dealing with HYDRA.

 

[theenglish]

I never understood the complaint about no real Nazis in the CA movie, because we did see real Nazi when The Red Skull killed the Nazi's sent to meet with him. And at the same time I kind of assumed that the idea behind the group Steve was part of, was that they dealt with the more unusual stuff like Hydra, while the rest of the army fought the regular Nazis.

Yeah, that's what I always figured, too. I'm pretty sure Colonel Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones' character) even mentioned at one point that the Strategic Scientific Reserve was leaving for Europe to combat HYDRA directly. So while Cap probably fought regular Nazi enemies on occasion, the majority of his time was probably spent dealing with HYDRA.

I just saw CA for the first time just a couple of weeks ago in preparation for The Avengers. While I don't remember that exact line, it was pretty clear to me that Cap and the Commandos were fighting Hydra specifically.

On a side note, The Avengers says that the Hulk (in this version) was created trying to replicate the original Super-soldier formula. Steve Rogers was selected because of his goodness, his spirit and his courage because the serum amplified all of these traits. It was a nice continuity touch that the Hulk was merely an amplification of Bruce Banner's inner rage and anger.

 

[Captain Craig]

On a side note, The Avengers says that the Hulk (in this version) was created trying to replicate the original Super-soldier formula. Steve Rogers was selected because of his goodness, his spirit and his courage because the serum amplified all of these traits. It was a nice continuity touch that the Hulk was merely an amplification of Bruce Banner's inner rage and anger.

Good observation. Also, interestingly enough is the same thing current comic writer Jason Aaron is doing with the book right now. Except of course his comic origin is still "caught in the gamma bomb blast". The Hulk being a manifestation of Banner's inner rage and not entirely a separate entity.