Why is DC so far behind Marvel in terms of movies?

[Guy Gardener]

How expensive is it to get interns to draw green constructs directly into the film with a green sharpie marker pen?

 

[marksound]

Overlord, you repeatedly use the phrase "take something interesting in the comics and make it less interesting in the TV show," or variations thereof. To whom exactly is it "less interesting"? Besides yourself, obviously.

Just curious.

 

[The Overlord]

Overlord, you repeatedly use the phrase "take something interesting in the comics and make it less interesting in the TV show," or variations thereof. To whom exactly is it "less interesting"? Besides yourself, obviously.

Just curious.

Well that's a matter of opinion of course, I can't speak for everyone, just my experience with these shows. If some people think say Smallville is as, if not more interesting as the comics, good on them, there is lots of people who don't think that. This thread is about opinions, I can't objectively measure what makes something more interesting then something else, that is impossible, I can only express my opinion on the subject.

So what you want me to say, of course is this is my opinion, that's the point. But have all the changes made in TV versions of the comics have been for the better? Is there not a lot of room for debate on which changes worked and which ones didn't?

 

[Christopher]

And as I said in response, it makes no sense to use that very low-budget show as an exemplar for TV superhero shows in general.

Then what show should I use as an exemplar of TV shows...

None of them. That is the whole point -- that there are too many differences among different shows to assume you can generalize from any single example.

, that show was on the longest running super hero tv show and the most successful, so its pretty easy to use that as an exemplar.

See, you're making the exact same mistake right there. It was successful by The CW's standards because The CW is a tiny network. By any other broadcast network's standards, its ratings would've guaranteed its failure. This is why you can't generalize. The networks are not identical and interchangeable. The budgets, the standards of success, the level of competition, they're different for each network, for each timeslot, for each show. There is no universal formula -- that's what I've been trying to explain to you. Each situation is different.

Another problem is, the TV producers often seem to less respect for the source material then the movie makers do. I actually think a Punisher TV show on HBO would be pretty good, but for a while Fox was in talks to make a Punisher TV show and it sounded terrible. Look at the recent Wonder Woman pilot, it was god awful. Most of the TV producers seem to chuck out all the stuff that made the comic good and replace it with stuff that makes it bland generic network TV.

Again you're resorting to lazy stereotypes and false generalizations. Some shows are more faithful to the source than others; some movies are more faithful to the source than others. It's case by case. If you can't recognize that, you'll never get a clue.

 

[The Overlord]

And as I said in response, it makes no sense to use that very low-budget show as an exemplar for TV superhero shows in general.

Then what show should I use as an exemplar of TV shows...

None of them. That is the whole point -- that there are too many differences among different shows to assume you can generalize from any single example.

, that show was on the longest running super hero tv show and the most successful, so its pretty easy to use that as an exemplar.

See, you're making the exact same mistake right there. It was successful by The CW's standards because The CW is a tiny network. By any other broadcast network's standards, its ratings would've guaranteed its failure. This is why you can't generalize. The networks are not identical and interchangeable. The budgets, the standards of success, the level of competition, they're different for each network, for each timeslot, for each show. There is no universal formula -- that's what I've been trying to explain to you. Each situation is different.

Sure, but you can always point to individual examples to point out trends in TV and movies and from my perspective some of these trends hold true, like some of the corner cutting and taking more liberities with the source material found in the TV series. Since I have not seen a live action super hero show that has wowed me, what can I take from that experience with them?

Even some of the super hero TV series that were original content and were on networks with bigger budgets, were still awful: Heroes after the first season, the Cape, No Ordinary Family.

There is only so many times one can get burned before one gets cynical about the whole idea. Its kinda like video games and movie adaption, there has never been a good one, so when one announced, you get cynical about the whole idea.

Maybe with Arrow and the new SHIELD this might turn around, but there is still ways to go.

I actually want to like live action super hero TV shows, but the shows often make it really hard for me to like them.

Another problem is, the TV producers often seem to less respect for the source material then the movie makers do. I actually think a Punisher TV show on HBO would be pretty good, but for a while Fox was in talks to make a Punisher TV show and it sounded terrible. Look at the recent Wonder Woman pilot, it was god awful. Most of the TV producers seem to chuck out all the stuff that made the comic good and replace it with stuff that makes it bland generic network TV.

Again you're resorting to lazy stereotypes and false generalizations. Some shows are more faithful to the source than others; some movies are more faithful to the source than others. It's case by case. If you can't recognize that, you'll never get a clue.

Sure I am just saying I have not seen a TV series that has really impressed me the way some of the movies have. Some of the movies are really bad, but some are really good and I have not seen a really a good live action super hero TV show.

I don't think of any shows you mentioned as really great TV. That is just my opinion, but that is the one I am sticking with.

 

[JD]

I don't really feel like searching the thread for specific quotes, but a lot of people were bringing up the limited budget for TV when talking about superheroes on TV, I don't see that being that much of a problem. I think shows like the CSIs, Once Upon A Time, Supernatural, and the BSG reboot have shown that if you have the right resources you can still do some pretty impressive stuff on a TV budget. Sure it might not be as impressive as Avengers, but it's not totally impossible to get accurate representations of the comic book heroes powers on TV. I thought Smallville managed to good powers VFX over the year.

That was me.

Frankly as I said before I didn't think Smallville had very good VFX, because got things like smoke demon Darkseid and a fight between Doomsday and Clark that happens off screen and that was the big thing that was built up for season 8.

Green Lantern and the Fantastic Four would be hard to do a live action movie, how would make those characters work on a TV budget? Would they just never use their powers or fight any of their iconic villains?

You can't have a good adaptation of something, if they can't do some of the basic things from the comics on the TV screen.

I think that is why Arrow, works as a TV show, because it deals with a guy without powers, fighting other guys without powers, its just a bunch of guys with gimmicks. Though frankly Arrow is only an okay show, its not great.

You've made your personal opinion clear, but obviously no television show or movie is made to satisfy the tastes of a single individual (aside from its own creator). I'm not talking about me, and I'm certainly not talking about you. I'm talking about the audience in the aggregate, because that's what's relevant when we're talking about the popularity or success of a work of mass entertainment.




Well, aside from the fact that the word is adaptation rather than "adaption"... no. The word "adapt" means "change to fit a new context." It is not the purpose of an adaptation to exactly duplicate the original. If you want the original, just read or watch the original! The point of doing an adaptation is to create something that takes the concepts or characters of the original in a new and different direction, that offers a fresh angle or perspective on the ideas. Of course things are going to have to be changed when a work is adapted to a new medium or format. Often, characters will be dropped or added or combined or reinterpreted. It happens all the time.

Actually both words are valid, though one is far more common then the other:

http://grammarist.com/usage/adaption-adaptation/

So maybe you should be a bit more careful before you nitpick someone else's grammar.

And secondly by your logic, wouldn't all the changes made to Fantastic Four in their movies be okay? Doesn't cloud Galactus and corporate Dr. Doom change things to a point, that the work is no longer really the FF anymore? What about the Catwoman movie, shouldn't an adaptation at least honor the spirit of the original work?

That's the problems I had with the changes in Smallville, they changed from the comics and replaced with things that were less interesting. I don't have a problem changing things to make it work in another medium, as long as those changes are as interesting or more interesting than what was done in the comics, not less interesting. I had no problems with the changes to Sebastian Shaw and Whiplash in the movies, but I didn't like the changes to Dr. Doom in the movies and Darkseid in Smallville.





Except if those characters play important role and you don't replace them with something interesting, can't it argued that the adaptation has suffered a bit? That is the problem I have with Smallville and the lesser comic book movies, they got rid of interesting ideas and replaced them with something less interesting.





Actually only 3 villains from the comics were in the TV series and they were kinda paired downed versions of the characters. Trickster was the best of the change, TV Mirror Master and Captain Cold were okay, but not great.

Really "Pollux" was a a poor man's version of Reverse Flash, but since he was simpleton rather then a psychopath like the comic book Reverse Flash, he was far less interesting. There is an example of taking something and replacing it with something less interesting.

I would agree with this review: the show had its moments, but ultimately was a failed experiment, at best it was okay:

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/the_flash/news/?a=50957




If high budget demands were part of the problem, doesn't prove my point?



But now see that is the kind of the logic creates Catwoman movies, that an adaptation can change anything it wants, shouldn't an adaptation honor the spirit of the original work as best it can? I didn't think Smallville did that for the most part.

How many super hero TV shows have had great production values?

In comparison to other television shows of their eras? Several. The Adam West Batman had impressive visuals and production design and very impressive action for a 1960s sitcom, although the third-season budget was slashed and the production suffered. The Bixby Hulk was an elaborate production for its time with extensive location work and heavy stunt work making it a very expensive show. The Flash, as I've said, had cutting-edge VFX from some of the same people who worked on Star Trek: TNG; a superbly designed and executed Flash costume; and great set design. And I was quite impressed by the VFX on the short-lived 1991 Human Target series from the same producers as The Flash -- they did some extraordinary work with split-screen and doubling effects, rivaling the best work along those lines that had ever been done onscreen up to that time.

I think you are pretty generous if you are saying the Adam West show had good production values. Bad production values were part of the camp appeal of that show, there was a lot of paper mache on that show.

And could you really do something like Green Lantern and the Fantastic Four on a TV budget? Frankly those are tricky to do in a movie, it be impossible to do them on a TV budget at this point in time, unless they never use their powers, which kinda undermines the premise of these characters. Why would GL or Human Torch almost never use their powers and would you do the Thing on a TV budget or Mr. Fantastic's powers?

Likewise an Iron Man show, were Tony Stark barely ever puts on the armor doesn't feel like a good adaptation of the comics or sounds like an interesting show.

I don't really see where the stuff we see in the comics would be that much harder to do than what shows like Fringe, Once Upon a Time do, or Defiance appears to be doing on a regular basis. What exactly is it about superhero powers that is so much harder to do than all of the tech, powers, or creatures on Fringe, the magic or CGI characters and creatures on OUAT, or the aliens and new Earth environments on Defiance.

 

[theenglish]

I don't think it is really about showing super powers that is the difficulty, but rather the frequency of the effects shots. Any super-hero show would have to be drama based rather than action based as the effects shots would be limited by the budget.

But creative writers should be able to handle this. Some of the best Trek episodes ever, were bottle episodes with extremely limited effects. It forced the writers to step up their game and not be able to rely on the wow factor.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I think you are pretty generous if you are saying the Adam West show had good production values. Bad production values were part of the camp appeal of that show, there was a lot of paper mache on that show.

Incorrect across the board. Dozier's Batman was a very expensive series to produce, as an entire comic world had to be built with more than surplus computer consoles. Dozier (and ABC) wanted to take full advantage of the then-sales gimmick of color TV, while realizing that the only way to make the series appear to be a comic leaping out of the page was to spend money where it mattered.

From the hero (& villain) costumes, the gadgets, vehicles, and celebriity guest stars (who were not going to appear on some low rent series), the series was one of the most fully realized version of a comic ever produced, and to this day, few have come as close (in appearance) as this show to its era of comics.

 

[Christopher]

I don't think it is really about showing super powers that is the difficulty, but rather the frequency of the effects shots. Any super-hero show would have to be drama based rather than action based as the effects shots would be limited by the budget.

But creative writers should be able to handle this. Some of the best Trek episodes ever, were bottle episodes with extremely limited effects. It forced the writers to step up their game and not be able to rely on the wow factor.

Exactly. The point is not to duplicate, but to adapt -- to take the idea of superheroes but tell the stories in a different way, one that's tailored for live-action TV. That means focusing more on ideas and characters rather than action and spectacle, but TV science fiction and fantasy have been doing that successfully for generations.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^^ I think they need to plan ahead to make it work. I think Smallville and Heroes had moments where they didn't think the endgame through at the beginning and then painted themselves in a corner when it came time to actually deliver a pay off and couldn't deliver. Something ain't right when we were snarkily predicting just how lame the finales were going to be.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, the problem with Smallville was that its creators probably never expected it to run more than 5-6 seasons, so as it kept getting renewed over and over again, they had to stretch it out and bring in more and more elements from the comics and from Clark's adult life, thus bringing it closer and closer to being an actual Superman series -- but they still insisted on maintaining the original conceit of being about Clark's life before he became Superman, so it got increasingly labored. I and plenty of other people felt that they should've just renamed it Metropolis and made it a straight-up Superman show, a sequel to Smallville rather than just more seasons thereof, but there was too much resistance from within. (I have the impression that Welling refused to wear the tights, which is reinforced by the fact that we never got a full shot of him in costume even in the series finale.)

 

[TheSeeker]

It's a shame. I think renaming it Metropolis and having new stories with him as Superman would have been a good route to go.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, in effect that's what they were doing in the last 2-3 seasons. Clark was an active costumed superhero leading a community of heroes, and he worked at the Daily Planet with Lois Lane. The fact that he wasn't using the familiar name and costume and ran places rather than flying was rather a superficial difference, which is why it was so silly that they didn't just go ahead and make those changes.

 

[Dr.H]

I used to like Smallvile even though it was just Dawson Creek meets Superman, but I was kinda expecting and hoping they explore the prospect of realistic Superman, a grounded version of the character stripped away from most of the fanciful elements of his print versions. Sadly, even though it was a bold new take on the character it still retained the comic book elements. The show could be really corny, cheesy and overly melodramatic and actually I think there were moments in which they take a bit more effort to help me suspend my disbelief, but there was some good moments in there. Oh well, Man of Steel coming out this summer should fill that void and fulfill my wish for a real world Superman.

Anyone read the story Superman:Secret Identity?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Well the most recent Man of Steel trailer makes me think DC might be on the way back to being top dog in the movies.

 

[JD]

Well, they might be improving, but I don't know if just the Dark Knight movies and this will be enough to dethrone Marvel quite yet. But it could be a step in the right direction at least.

 

[bigdaddy]

^Well, the problem with Smallville was that its creators probably never expected it to run more than 5-6 seasons, so as it kept getting renewed over and over again, they had to stretch it out and bring in more and more elements from the comics and from Clark's adult life, thus bringing it closer and closer to being an actual Superman series -- but they still insisted on maintaining the original conceit of being about Clark's life before he became Superman, so it got increasingly labored. I and plenty of other people felt that they should've just renamed it Metropolis and made it a straight-up Superman show, a sequel to Smallville rather than just more seasons thereof, but there was too much resistance from within. (I have the impression that Welling refused to wear the tights, which is reinforced by the fact that we never got a full shot of him in costume even in the series finale.)

The creators of Smallville had no clue what they were doing and only enough story for 2-3 seasons, at best. Thankfully they left the show and it became a lot better with more comic references in it.

They should have continued it and just made it a Justice League show. But I guess Arrow is doing great on it's own and the JL movie, so it would be over kill.

 

[Corwwyn]

Marvel has a plan. WB/DC doesn't

More than that, Marvel doesn't just say it has a plan (and then proceed to pull something cockamamey out of it's ass later), it really does/did have one from the get-go, and even better, a really good one.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Bendis and a couple others can lay put 5 year plans and stick to them.

That's because these are very talented writers, not because the Editors are working from scope, but that they have to get out of the way of these "artists" and if this process could work for any writer, there'd still have to be a massive amount of deserved faith in the writers who are asked to pitch a 5 or 10 year plan, who couldn't possibly follow through, and get cancelled after 7 issues.

You don't go to war with the army you want, you go to war with the army you got.

DC has Geoff Johns.

His Green lantern Story has been running for 10 years and it's quite possible that he ignored completely the New 52. He was unphased. Fuck you New 52, I'm busy, I'm in the middle of something IMPORTANT...

Geoff Johns' editors must feel like a pussies.

Are you a lion tamer?

No sir, I'm a pussy.

 

[Corwwyn]

Actually it was cancelled for a variety of reasons, including the high budget it demanded, a bad timeslot that went up against stiff competition on NBC and FOX, and frequent pre-emptions by news reports. (I still remember how annoyed I was that half of the Bill Mumy episode was pre-empted by a half-hour of Dan Rather talking about the minor and ultimately harmless heart problem that then-president Bush had been hospitalized for that day. They cut to the news report at the worst possible moment, just after a gun had gone off between two wrestling characters and before we found out which one had been shot. It was pretty easy to guess, of course, but what an aggravating moment to pre-empt the show!)

Pre-empting, be it for news reports or sports events or messing around with timeslots has been the bane of potentially (or actually) good SF/Fantasy/etc tv shows finding an audience since forever.