Marvel Vs DC MOVIES

[Great Rao]

I would love to see Green Lantern, Flash, Capt Marvel, JLA, Wonder Woman, etc... but will they ever happen?  Will it be worth it to me to see them?  Will they be familar characters?

Is it that the Marvel Universe translates better?  Is DC too messed up with too many variations of it's characters (while Marvel has kept their characters the "same")

opinions?

This is all speculation on my part - I think it could have something to do with the differences between how the two companies relate to the studios.

DC is owned by Warner Brothers, who might just use it as a supply closet which they can mine for movie concepts.  These concepts then get converted into mainstream movies by the Hollywood Movie Types.  DC may have no say or control over what WB does with their properties, and have to sit tight and get as surprised by the movies as the rest of us.

Marvel probably has a completely different relationship with the studios.  Based on the films, it seems like Marvel has final approval over the story, possibly over more.  Does anyone know the details on how this works?  Perhaps Marvel accepts movie bids, or has some degree of creative control since they license out the characters with guidelines or something.

Which reminds me - whatever happened with that "Superman Bible" I heard about a year or two ago?  DC was compiling a book of guidelines to Superman that everyone was supposed to follow.  I wonder if anyone who worked on Superman Returns even knew about it.

[Criadoman]

I agree with you, Rao.  There is a different relationship between DC and studios and Marvel and studios.

1stly, up until the late 1990s - DC properties were always hugely more successful than Marvel properties on TV and screen.

Now, as we all know, Marvel had some horrible dogs in the early 1990s.  Captain America and the 1st Fantastic 4 movie.  Somewhere I had heard that Marvel just sold the licenses to whomever wanted.  I find it interesting that after Marvel makes a recovery from their bankruptcy - they start making hits.  I'm thinking that the bankruptcy got back Marvel's licenses - and Marvel started being more choosy about their properties.  I notice that Marvel's movies are made by many different studios (Universal, Paramount, etc.)

That's a lot of resource to throw at making a movie.  Each studio has their own cash to throw into development.

This is different from DC it appears.  DC apparently only gets to work with Warner Bros.  So, Warner Bros foots the development bill and frankly they really seem to suck at it for the most part.  This, by the way, goes back as far as the original Superman flick.  Apparently all the money to make the movie was put up by the Salkinds.  It appears that unless you're a hot something name, you just aren't going to get any support from the studio to develop the movie.  That's a very comperably small amount of resource (one studio as opposed to everyone as in Marvel's case) to be used.

So, Marvel simply gets it more on volume - really.  Volume of proposals for many studios, volumes of studios or producers investing to develop, etc.  DC then becomes a bit more like the "red headed step child" of their parent companies - and they'll only get a movie if momma company thinks it is a sure bet.

If DC could market it's properties the way Marvel can, it would be a more interesting field right now.

[davidelliott]

If DC could market it's properties the way Marvel can, it would be a more interesting field right now.

I agree with all this... I was even so disenchanted as a kid with the Reeve Superman movies (a force shooting out of fingers.. an enlarging S emblem?)

Although the X-Men films were so different from the comics.. looks and continuity-wise... they were still refreshing.  The characterizations were great.

I liked Daredevil, actually... never saw Hulk or some of the others, but love the 2 FF movies (except Jessica Alba is IMHO NOTHING like Lee and Kirby's Sue Storm.  Sue was a liberated and strong woman before women were liberated and strong).  On the whole, though, the Marvel films are just so much BETTER for whatever reason.  The icing on the cake is Stan "the Man" Lee's cameos in the movies I've seen.

For Batman... get rid of the rubber suits... black and dark grey spandex (or whatever) would look very Trevor Von Eeden-ish.  Get some real STYLE in the Bat-films.  Batman is a detective, as well as a fighter. Get the supporting characters looking like theit comic book counterparts.

It seems to me that some of the Marvel movies have just done a better job of making the audience care about the characters. Neither Batman Begins or Superman Returns did that for me.

My biggest complaint about Superman Returns is the nonsense with Lois's new beau and the kid. It turned the classic Superman/Lois/Clark triangle into some weird Superman/Lois/Cyclops/kid/Clark hyper-polygon. It was great to see Superman do some heroic stuff (saving a falling plane, getting rid of Luthor's kryptonite island), but it was creepy to see Superman spy and eavesdrop on Lois and whatshisname. And they might as well have left Clark out of the movie.

This is so right, Spiff... I CAN'T care about the Superman/Batman movie versions, as I don't know them.  These versions are not familiar to me.  I CAN care about Tobey MacGuires Parker, Ben Affleck's Matt Murdock and others.  Michael Chilkis IS Ben Grimm to a T. The casting in all the Marvel movies I've seen is SPOT ON (Save for window dressing/Botox lipped Alba, although I see why she has the part)

DC... get a hold on your characters... use what works in the original material (Clark/Lois/Superman triangle) on the big screen.

Sigh

[Superman Forever]

Just some points. Marvel is doing more movies, not investing in faithful adaptations, but in targetting an specific public of teenagers who cound´t care less about who Peter Parker or Johnny Blaze really are. In the case of Spider-Man and The X-Men, we have good movies AND public success because Sam Raimi and Bryan Singer could merge good stories with the blockbuster tone. Also, they are more popular characters, not wordwide recognized, but popular today. In all the others, just like the Fantastic Four or The Hulk or Elektra or Ghost Rider, we either have a good movie OR a public acclaim OR neither. The target public of the movies, again, is not the comic book readers and never will be.

I also disagree about Superman Reurns and Batman Begins. To me, they´re the best versions of the characters in movies since Richard Donner´s 1978 Superman. About not being as faithful as the Marvel movies, for start the Marvel movies do a lot of trash, and second, Marvel comic books have a history. DC Comics have different interpretations that contradict each other. So Superman Returns is based on Superman For All Season, Must There Be a Superman?, and Secret Identity, but not other versions. Batman Begins is based on Batman: Year One, The Long Halloween, and Denny O´Neil stuff. They are also less mainstream productions and more personal works, especially Superman Returns by Singer, with all the alienation and messiah themes. In essence, they´ve "failed' for not connecting with current teenagers. That Smallville TV show, on the other hand... 

 

[Criadoman]

I also disagree about Superman Reurns and Batman Begins. To me, they´re the best versions of the characters in movies since Richard Donner´s 1978 Superman.

Yeah, I'd agree with you on this point.  Keaton's Batman was nifty to me but the most recent incarnation is the best so far.

So Superman Returns is based on Superman For All Season, Must There Be a Superman?, and Secret Identity, but not other versions. Batman Begins is based on Batman: Year One, The Long Halloween, and Denny O´Neil stuff. They are also less mainstream productions and more personal works, especially Superman Returns by Singer, with all the alienation and messiah themes. In essence, they´ve "failed' for not connecting with current teenagers. That Smallville TV show, on the other hand... 

Hmm... I didn't see much of Superman For All Seasons in SR, definitely I see "Must There Be a Superman?" - but Secret ID?  Not quite seeing that one either.  I thought it was more of a Funeral for a Friend riff going on during the coma scenes.  I think only now in the comics are we seeing the kid thing - thank you Donner.  I do like that angle on the kid better than Superman's own child version in the movie.  However, SR seems based completely on the Donner story than any particular comics storyline.  I hadn't thought this before but it occurs to me that the unofficial Superman revamp before Byrne is the "movie" Superman. 

I thought Batman Begins was rather good, and a bit stunning.  I took it having a bit more of Dark Knight Returns and Legends of the Dark Knight series.  I'm a bit OK with the body armor - but think it's too much - and should be subtler.

Interesting thoughts.

[Superman Forever]

Yeah, I'd agree with you on this point.  Keaton's Batman was nifty to me but the most recent incarnation is the best so far.

Same about Brandon Routh as Superman. Dean Cain and Tom Welling are fine as a post-Crisis Clark Kent, when Superman is not real, and in Smallville, is not even present. But Routh is Superman in the Returns movie.

Hmm... I didn't see much of Superman For All Seasons in SR, definitely I see "Must There Be a Superman?" - but Secret ID?  Not quite seeing that one either.  I thought it was more of a Funeral for a Friend riff going on during the coma scenes.  I think only now in the comics are we seeing the kid thing - thank you Donner.  I do like that angle on the kid better than Superman's own child version in the movie.  However, SR seems based completely on the Donner story than any particular comics storyline.

I see the connection with the Funeral for a Friend story arc, and while Superman Returns did´t literally adapt Superman for All Seasons or Secret Identity, I think that the general "feeling" of the character was consistent with these books. To me, Superman Returns works as a sensorial experience about being the most powerful being in the universe and feel lonely, just like the Loeb and Busieks stories. It´s a great homage and sequence to Donner movies, but thematically, at least, I think is more loyal to these comics. 

I hadn't thought this before but it occurs to me that the unofficial Superman revamp before Byrne is the "movie" Superman. 

Yes, but isn´t the "movie" Superman in tone with the Bronze Age version, more than with anything else? Maggin was consulted about the script, after all. The main difference is the time travel and changing history for loving Lois Lane, but I don´t see it as a revanp of Byrne´s level.

I thought Batman Begins was rather good, and a bit stunning.  I took it having a bit more of Dark Knight Returns and Legends of the Dark Knight series.  I'm a bit OK with the body armor - but think it's too much - and should be subtler.

The armor thing may be a problem, but there are two points in the movie: Bruce Wayne is a ninja, so he woud´t need it; but, even being a ninja, he would´t risk being shot. So yes, it should be subtler, but is still an advance because in Begins, he at leat had the ninja training.

[Lee Semmens]

Marvel's had their share of duds--Daredevil and Hulk come to mind. But at least they are trying.

That's purely a matter of opinion; who's to say who is trying more than the other?

[miceland]

I have been thinking about the difference a lot lately.

I love comic book movies. I see most of them in the theater. I am a lover of Marvel comics. One cannot argue with the sheer number of Marvel movies out in recent memory. The first X-Men movie seemed to be the beginning of the Marvel wave that we are seeing now. However, they are not all good. Many of them make me wish I had stayed home! Accuracy is good, but it need to work as a movie and be intersting to watch.

case in point - Hulk.
Great character. great 70's TV program. Horrible movie. Just dreadful.

Ghost Rider - terrible.
Spiderman - eh. they were OK. I thought Spiderman needed more attitude and more taunting. That was what I always loved about him. Teasing the villians. Where was that?
X-Men - the first one was the best. I love the X-Men. The movies were pretty good but could have been better.

Daredevil. Yuck. Electra. OMG so bad. Way to ruin one of may favorite characters.

I liked Fantastic 4-2. It was not perfect but it was an improvement over the first.

The best comic book movie of all time though - Superman.
I firmly believe that. How did they get it so right? It just was perfect. And Superman 2? Even better than the best.

I like most of the Batman movies, 'cept Batman and Robin. Beetlejuice made a fine Batman, as did American Psycho. Its like James Bond, everyone plays Bats a little differently. They are all him.

As for Wonder Woman, how are you going to do better than Lynda Carter? She nailed that role. The show was rediculous but so much fun to watch for the kiddies and for the you know not-kiddies-any-more.