Wonder Woman wouldnt get a film in a million years anyway in this generation's environment. The horror! The thought of a film starring a woman without a romantic interest and who's not a pithy support character.
Movie Superheroes: What are Marvel doing right that DC aren't?
3 of 4
Originally Posted by StratusSphere:
“Wonder Woman wouldnt get a film in a million years anyway in this generation's environment. The horror! The thought of a film starring a woman without a romantic interest and who's not a pithy support character.”
“Wonder Woman wouldnt get a film in a million years anyway in this generation's environment. The horror! The thought of a film starring a woman without a romantic interest and who's not a pithy support character.”
When was the last time you saw a movie? Haywire, Charlies Angels, Kill Bill, Resident Evil, Ultraviolet,Tomb Raider, Salt, Aeon Flux, Underworld, D.O.A (love that film), and many many others. Granted some of them have a love interest - but there's nothing stopping Wonder Woman having a love interest anyway.
This generation's environment? THIS generation's? Buddy, I reckon you've missed out on the golden years of female disenfranchisement and you're assuming things are bad now because that's what you've been told. Hell, even my generation had Pam Grier.
Originally Posted by StratusSphere:
“I think all of the DC heroes or many of them are quite hard to square with the reality of the world nowadays. I know in comic terms they get round that by them being set in different worlds, but really..?
Superman is an alien. Wonder Woman is like, some kind of heir to being a goddess. They don't really have the best backstory. (I know there's many more but I've never been a particular DC fan). DC comes across as quite campy, quite old fashioned, whereas Marvel seems to be able to move with the times. ”
“I think all of the DC heroes or many of them are quite hard to square with the reality of the world nowadays. I know in comic terms they get round that by them being set in different worlds, but really..?
Superman is an alien. Wonder Woman is like, some kind of heir to being a goddess. They don't really have the best backstory. (I know there's many more but I've never been a particular DC fan). DC comes across as quite campy, quite old fashioned, whereas Marvel seems to be able to move with the times. ”
I'm a member of a local comic club, and when we were
discussing DC Comics a few weeks ago someone
said he thought, Batman, Doom Patrol and a few others aside, "there was something a bit "1950s" about most of
DC's Superhero characters".
Quote:
“I believe Marvel's main success is due to X-Men, X2 and Spiderman establishing it in the industry. These are the films people remember. They were cast and acted quite well and the themes in them overreached the typical action summer blockbuster, delving into romance, social inequality, and in X-Men, lots and lots of symbolism. Then later films like Iron Man could build on this core.”
“I believe Marvel's main success is due to X-Men, X2 and Spiderman establishing it in the industry. These are the films people remember. They were cast and acted quite well and the themes in them overreached the typical action summer blockbuster, delving into romance, social inequality, and in X-Men, lots and lots of symbolism. Then later films like Iron Man could build on this core.”
Yeah, the first two Spiderman movies were great. I
know people who would never pick up a comic who
loved them- they seemed to have the same universal appeal
that the Christopher Reeve Superman movies had.
Quote:
“Obviously they didnt all work out. With something like Fantastic Four, the idea of the 'super-family' just seems too neat and unrealistic, there's not much you can build on there with 'cosmic rays' and 'radiation' etc.”
“Obviously they didnt all work out. With something like Fantastic Four, the idea of the 'super-family' just seems too neat and unrealistic, there's not much you can build on there with 'cosmic rays' and 'radiation' etc.”
"Fantastic Four" has a great mythology (Doctor Doom,
Annihilus, Uatu, Galactus) that the awful film adaptations
just squandered.
Quote:
“But with DC heroes, its even hard to create a realistic story. With Spiderman, you could see why Peter Parker was bullied and outcast. Why would that happen to Clark Kent? Because he sometimes wore glasses and had to always run to the bathroom when a distaster happened?
.”
“But with DC heroes, its even hard to create a realistic story. With Spiderman, you could see why Peter Parker was bullied and outcast. Why would that happen to Clark Kent? Because he sometimes wore glasses and had to always run to the bathroom when a distaster happened?
.”
Clark Kent was never the weedy guy who got picked on,
but he has own pain that makes him appealing-he lost
his parents and his home, and he has to hide his
alien nature in order to fit into our world.
Every time I read or watch the Superman origin story,
the part where Jor-El and Lara bid a tearful farewell
to their son before sending him off from their
dying world always makes me sad.
Stuff like that is the reason Superman is an interesting
character-when he's written well, he's not
the boring, squeaky-clear power fantasy
some people think he is (hello, Todd
McFarlane!).
Originally Posted by not_the_doctor:
“Completely irrelevant. Captain America is a super-steroid-freak, and Thor isn't just an heir to a goddess, he's a full-on god.
There's nothing wrong with DC's characters. The only problem they have is that they've made a few mediocre or crappy movies in Superman and Green Lantern, and have been too timid about bringing other projects to fruition.”
“Completely irrelevant. Captain America is a super-steroid-freak, and Thor isn't just an heir to a goddess, he's a full-on god.
There's nothing wrong with DC's characters. The only problem they have is that they've made a few mediocre or crappy movies in Superman and Green Lantern, and have been too timid about bringing other projects to fruition.”
I have heard comments from some DC fans that for
years DC bosses were reluctant to give heroes
other than Superman and Batman their full backing,
so that when DC Title X stopped being 3rd best-seller
after Supes and Bats, they'd lose interest in. Marvel,
by contrast, (according to these guys) works hard to keep
support behind all their superhero titles equally.
I mean, in the early 1990s, (the age
of grim n' gritty antiheroes) I remember one of my friends
telling me he wouldn't read comics
about "those boring old
guys like Captain America and Aquaman".
Thanks to Ed Brubaker's run on the comic
and the Marvel movies, Captain's popularity is
arguably at its highest since the 1940s.
Who's tosay given the right talent, an unfashionable DC
hero like Aquaman couldn't be equally successful?
(Aquaman's turns in "Batman: The Brave and the Bold"
seem to have been popular, so it's a start).
I Think Alan Moore should be the next big superhero film! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F0VALObDZs
Originally Posted by StratusSphere:
“Wonder Woman wouldnt get a film in a million years anyway in this generation's environment. The horror! The thought of a film starring a woman without a romantic interest and who's not a pithy support character.”
“Wonder Woman wouldnt get a film in a million years anyway in this generation's environment. The horror! The thought of a film starring a woman without a romantic interest and who's not a pithy support character.”
They need to make her a warrior rather like Red Sonja rather than a female Superman which would translate better to the big screen. They really can't seem to shake of the Lynda Carter WW which seems to be the problem.
I think Black Canary would make a better female action film anyway.
Originally Posted by jackbell:
“They need to make her a warrior rather like Red Sonja rather than a female Superman which would translate better to the big screen. They really can't seem to shake of the Lynda Carter WW which seems to be the problem.
I think Black Canary would make a better female action film anyway.”
“They need to make her a warrior rather like Red Sonja rather than a female Superman which would translate better to the big screen. They really can't seem to shake of the Lynda Carter WW which seems to be the problem.
I think Black Canary would make a better female action film anyway.”
Except Black Canary has a silly name. The only canary with mainstream recognition is Tweety Pie.
Originally Posted by Big Boy Barry:
“With Superman movies, one major blunder has/is being made. They are constantly trying to make a "dark" Superman movie. It doesn't work. It won't work. Superman has to be an idealistic hero, not some introspective, emo bore with cinematography so dark I can barely see what is taking place on screen.”
“With Superman movies, one major blunder has/is being made. They are constantly trying to make a "dark" Superman movie. It doesn't work. It won't work. Superman has to be an idealistic hero, not some introspective, emo bore with cinematography so dark I can barely see what is taking place on screen.”
I think that's true. Superman is supposed to be Superman, not Batman.
Maybe it's as simple a fact that Batman is inherently a more interesting character whom which a lot can be done with. Where Superman is actually the epitome of the corny cliche superhero?
Maybe Superman is something that worked in its time, but doesn't work in the new era of superhero storytelling. To get Superman to work it appears that they have to change him into a Batman type character.
In which case why not simply work on a Batman story instead?
Superman has never really worked for me. Not even the Christopher Reeve film.
To make him work in accord with modern sensibilities is like trying to force a cube into a circular hole. He just epitomizes everything you'd associate with a cookie cutter corny superhero archetype.
Whoever gets Superman to work I think will be very clever indeed.
I think for Superman to work in a film, the society depicted in the story has to be dark and jaded and Superman has to contrast that in order to provide hope and optimism.
I wasn't alive in the 1930s to experience what it was like to live in those times, but perhaps that's why Superman was so effective and became so successful as that's what was needed at the time.
Originally Posted by dadioflex:
“Except Black Canary has a silly name. The only canary with mainstream recognition is Tweety Pie.”
“Except Black Canary has a silly name. The only canary with mainstream recognition is Tweety Pie.”
I disagree. Black Canary has a pulp magazine quality. Think of the films Blue Dahlia and Black Angel. I would take her back to her roots as someone that has a criminal past but now dances around what's wrong and what's right; a bit like Catwoman.
I would set in a time of jazz clubs and film noir.
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“I think that's true. Superman is supposed to be Superman, not Batman.
Maybe it's as simple a fact that Batman is inherently a more interesting character whom which a lot can be done with. Where Superman is actually the epitome of the corny cliche superhero?
.”
“I think that's true. Superman is supposed to be Superman, not Batman.
Maybe it's as simple a fact that Batman is inherently a more interesting character whom which a lot can be done with. Where Superman is actually the epitome of the corny cliche superhero?
.”
To be fair, Superman actually invented most of the stuff we
see as superhero cliches. Also, a "dark" Superman story
wouldn't really work (at least onthe big screen)-
there are many "dark" superheroes out there already (Batman, Wolverine, Hellboy, the Punisher).
It's just harder to write an
optimistic, morally upstanding superhero for a modern
audience, but it can be done (look at the 2011 Captain
America film). Maybe a new Superman film could be a
period piece, set in the 1930s or 1950s?
Marvel plans these things out strategically. We can clearly see how they set up the Avengers with each independent superhero. They planned and invested carefully and the big pay-off is well-deserved. DC for the most part just seems to depend on Nolan's Batman trilogy to keep their name bright.
Originally Posted by indigobleu:
“Marvel plans these things out strategically. We can clearly see how they set up the Avengers with each independent superhero. They planned and invested carefully and the big pay-off is well-deserved. DC for the most part just seems to depend on Nolan's Batman trilogy to keep their name bright.”
“Marvel plans these things out strategically. We can clearly see how they set up the Avengers with each independent superhero. They planned and invested carefully and the big pay-off is well-deserved. DC for the most part just seems to depend on Nolan's Batman trilogy to keep their name bright.”
I also think DC put all their eggs in one basket with the Green
Lantern film whereas a better
idea would have been to make two lower-budgeted DC
flicks (the Flash, and maybe a much cheaper GL film?). That
way they're be more chance of one of them succeeding.
Someone in this thread keeps saying that Captain America and Thor made less money than Superman Returns at the box office (which technically is true). Their rationale presumably being that SR was considered a failure, therefore these two Marvel films should also be considered failures.
That is wrong. In fact, both Captain America and Thor were made on significantly smaller budgets than Superman Returns. So if you look at their box office takings as a percentages of their costs, you find:
Superman Returns: 187%
Captain America: 262%
Thor: 300%
To put that in perspective, Men In Black 3 (the 6th highest grossing film of 2012) made a return of about 290% of its budget.
Bottom line: Captain America and Thor were significantly more successful than Superman Returns and were certainly not failures.
That is wrong. In fact, both Captain America and Thor were made on significantly smaller budgets than Superman Returns. So if you look at their box office takings as a percentages of their costs, you find:
Superman Returns: 187%
Captain America: 262%
Thor: 300%
To put that in perspective, Men In Black 3 (the 6th highest grossing film of 2012) made a return of about 290% of its budget.
Bottom line: Captain America and Thor were significantly more successful than Superman Returns and were certainly not failures.
Originally Posted by terryfc81:
“i think making superboy would be a great idea”
“i think making superboy would be a great idea”
If you Kon El the metahuman Superman clone, I agree.
Originally Posted by cyclone5uk:
“Someone in this thread keeps saying that Captain America and Thor made less money than Superman Returns at the box office (which technically is true). Their rationale presumably being that SR was considered a failure, therefore these two Marvel films should also be considered failures.
.”
“Someone in this thread keeps saying that Captain America and Thor made less money than Superman Returns at the box office (which technically is true). Their rationale presumably being that SR was considered a failure, therefore these two Marvel films should also be considered failures.
.”
Not to mention of course that they helped set up the Avengers film, which was the big pay off. The current marvel lineup cross-markets very very successfully.
Originally Posted by jackbell:
“Arrow seems to have taken off. I wonder if they regret not making it a big budget feature?”
“Arrow seems to have taken off. I wonder if they regret not making it a big budget feature?”
No, if it becomes even vaguely popular they can hammer it for all it's worth (probably more than a film if it survives long enough), then release a feature film as a final hurrah, Also, Green Arrow was no where near well known enough for a big budget movie, giving it a relatively low budget TV show was probably a significant gamble...
Such movies have never been a safe production haven... previous movies such as Doctor Strange (costarring John Mills), Captain America (starring Steve Forrest), the Hulk (starring Bill Bixby - both TV series and TV Movies), Fantastic Four have essentially been poorly received.
In the case of Avengers, another key factor in the success was the fan base which Josh Whedon brought with him, through Buffy, Angel, Firefly, in addition to viewers who have followed other movies in the series (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America). However, recent Hulk movies have varied from the John Woo version, and the Edward Norton Version.
Myself - I enjoyed the Superman movie, directed by Bryan Singer, X Men 1 and 2 (directed by Bryan Siinger), X Men 3 (so-so), Wolverine, and Batman 1-2 (Michael Keaton) and Batman (Christopher Nolan tilogy).
In the case of Avengers, another key factor in the success was the fan base which Josh Whedon brought with him, through Buffy, Angel, Firefly, in addition to viewers who have followed other movies in the series (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America). However, recent Hulk movies have varied from the John Woo version, and the Edward Norton Version.
Myself - I enjoyed the Superman movie, directed by Bryan Singer, X Men 1 and 2 (directed by Bryan Siinger), X Men 3 (so-so), Wolverine, and Batman 1-2 (Michael Keaton) and Batman (Christopher Nolan tilogy).
Originally Posted by DariaM:
“Such movies have never been a safe production haven... previous movies such as Doctor Strange (costarring John Mills), Captain America (starring Steve Forrest), the Hulk (starring Bill Bixby - both TV series and TV Movies), Fantastic Four have essentially been poorly received.”
“Such movies have never been a safe production haven... previous movies such as Doctor Strange (costarring John Mills), Captain America (starring Steve Forrest), the Hulk (starring Bill Bixby - both TV series and TV Movies), Fantastic Four have essentially been poorly received.”
Wasn't The Doctor Strange movie a TV pilot? Also the 1990s Fantastic Four movie wasn't and never intended to be released. It was a low budget film made purely so the studio could keep the rights.
In the other corner we have the Blade movies and then we get into blockbusters like X-Men 1 - 3, Spider-Man 1 -3, Iron Man 1 &2, Thor, Captain America, Incredible Hulk, Kick-Ass and even the Fantastic Four movies.
X-Men opened the door but I'd argue once Raimi's Spider-Man hit it showed Hollywood that comic book superheroes could be done justice on the big screen without overly changing them. Far from being wary of them comicbook superheroes became studio go-to movies for easy hits.
Quote:
“In the case of Avengers, another key factor in the success was the fan base which Josh Whedon brought with him, through Buffy, Angel, Firefly”
“In the case of Avengers, another key factor in the success was the fan base which Josh Whedon brought with him, through Buffy, Angel, Firefly”
I don't think Whedon's role in the movie had anything significant to do with the success. Other than fanboys I don't think the public at large went in because it was Whedon like they would if it had been James Cameron or Speilberg or a big name like that.
Quote:
“in addition to viewers who have followed other movies in the series (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America).”
“in addition to viewers who have followed other movies in the series (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America).”
This right here is the reason Marvel is doing so well with their movies now. They crafted a universe were we can have individual heroes exist in the same world just iike in the comics. Not only can they team up but also reference each other or have cameos in each others solo movies etc.
Also since Marvel don't have the film rights to its flagship franchises like Spider-Man and the X-Men then they've really put effort into popularising its secondary characters as well obscure one. If someone had told me we'd be getting a Guardians of the Galaxy movie years ago I would have told them they were crazy but one is getting made.
You'd think DC would be better at this since there's no issue with their characters being at different studios but they can't get a shared universe going as they don't trust their characters beyond Batman and maybe Superman. Green Lantern was an attempt to start such a universe but since it was largely a failure it seems they are reluctant to try again.
Originally Posted by The Fozzmeister:
“ah, get ya. I thought you meant they were B-listers in the comics. Yeah, definitely agree with you on that one.
I'm not saying that they were mega-successful, but I enjoyed them more than the previous films, mostly because they were all building to something.
agreed about Thor, it wasn't my favourite Marvel movie, but I still enjoyed the development of Thor and Loki. I thought Wolverine, X3, Spiderman 2&3 both FF movies and 2003 Hulk were all really poor. I haven't seen First Class but I've heard good things about it.”
“ah, get ya. I thought you meant they were B-listers in the comics. Yeah, definitely agree with you on that one.
I'm not saying that they were mega-successful, but I enjoyed them more than the previous films, mostly because they were all building to something.
agreed about Thor, it wasn't my favourite Marvel movie, but I still enjoyed the development of Thor and Loki. I thought Wolverine, X3, Spiderman 2&3 both FF movies and 2003 Hulk were all really poor. I haven't seen First Class but I've heard good things about it.”
You must watch X-Men: First Class.
I personally think it's the best superhero flick since the 1978 Superman film.
Originally Posted by jakeyv37:
“I think they're stronger, better characters with a human quality. not many non comic book fans would of known who Green Lantern is in my own opinion. but most of all the characters are all likeable and the majority of actors to have played Marvel superheroes have been very good.”
“I think they're stronger, better characters with a human quality. not many non comic book fans would of known who Green Lantern is in my own opinion. but most of all the characters are all likeable and the majority of actors to have played Marvel superheroes have been very good.”
You're talking a hell of a lot of Tommy Rollocks, you do know that don't you? I can understand that obviously you're a Marvel Zombie who doesn't recognise any other point of view but as someone who's read both Marvel and DC for years I can tell you that DC have the stronger, better characters that are infinitely more heroic, pleasant, and likeable. I'd take Green Lantern over the Vision any day, and Batman over the Silver Surfer likewise.
Have you actually READ any DC comics in the last thirty years? Doubt it. Try KINGDOM COME or JUSTICE or IDENTITY CRISIS then if you have the humility come back and apologise and admit that you've changed your mind. If you did, you would; but I won't hold my breath.
It IS a good question though. Why have Marvel made so many films lately and DC so few? Try and asnwer it without dissing the competition though if you want to arrive at a more objective, factual conclusion.
Originally Posted by Dennis C:
“ I'd take Green Lantern over the Vision any day, and Batman over the Silver Surfer likewise.”
“ I'd take Green Lantern over the Vision any day, and Batman over the Silver Surfer likewise.”
You picked Marvel's least likeable characters. I suspect a comparison with Nova or Ben Grimm would lead to a different conclusion.
Have you read any DC comics in the last year or so? They've all been Marvelised, mostly by people who ruined Marvel in the nineties like Bob Harras and Howard Mackie.
Marvel have put a lot more planning into their superhero movies than Warner/DC. The Avengers deal took years to set up.
Originally Posted by Dennis C:
“It IS a good question though. Why have Marvel made so many films lately and DC so few? Try and asnwer it without dissing the competition though if you want to arrive at a more objective, factual conclusion.”
“It IS a good question though. Why have Marvel made so many films lately and DC so few? Try and asnwer it without dissing the competition though if you want to arrive at a more objective, factual conclusion.”
I'm not sure.
Something I've noted:if a DC character is a semi-regular
in something like "Batman:the Brave and the Bold"
or other DCUA shows, surely that means kids who watch the DCAU shows
would ask their parents to see a film with
the same character if one was made.*
*Assuming they don't turn same character into
a heroin-addicted wife-beatier.
3 of 4
