Marvel vs DC movies

[bayonetbrant]

https://uproxx.com/hitfix/kick-ass-mark-millar-marvel-film-dc/

I think it's really simple the characters aren't cinematic and I say this as a massive DC fan who much prefers their characters to Marvel's. Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are some of my favourites but I think these characters, with the exception of Batman, they aren't based around their secret identity they are based around their superpower. Whereas the Marvel characters tend to be based around the personality of Matt Murdock or Peter Parker or the individual X-Men, it's all about the character. DC, outside of Batman, is not about the character. With Batman, you can understand him and you can worry about him but someone like Green Lantern, he has this ring that allows him to create 3D physical manifestations and green plasma with the thoughts in his head but he's allergic to the colour yellow! How do you make a movie with that? In 1952 that made perfect sense but now the audience have no idea what that's all about.

People will slam me for this but I think the evidence is there. We've seen great directors, great writers and great actors, tonnes of money thrown at them, but these films aren't working. I think they are all too far away from when they were created. Something feels a little old about them, kids look at these characters and they don't feel that cool. Even Superman, I love Superman, but he belongs to an America that doesn't exist anymore. He represents 20th Century America and I think he peaked then.

[JasonPratt]

If it was really true that DC comic characters are based around their powerset rather than their character (and Batman does have a 'power set' in that sense, albeit his powerset _is_ his character), then the current DC movies shouldn't be failing. Because they're all about the flash, and not really about the characters -- or rather, the characterizations are all crummy and broken! BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WARNER BROTHERS WANTED! -- they wanted grimdark deconstructions to set them apart from Marvel, so they hired the writer/director/adapter of Sucker Punch, and the Watchmen, and 300 (arguably his most successful pure film in that case however because you can hardly have a grimdark deconstruction of the Spartans vs the Persians. ;) )

This also wouldn't explain the critical and fan success of Wonder Woman, which was largely a character driven film where her powers rarely come to the front -- but which wasn't a grimdark deconstruction of her character. It was a very faithful adaptation of why her character (not merely the powers) has lasted so long.

The problem, again, isn't that DC characters aren't about the characters. The problem is that DC is currently butchering its characters (on film anyway, with a few exceptions).

Mark Millar is kind of super-wrong about this. The animated DC properties in recent decades have been generally to highly well received. Why did Green Lantern work on two Justice League series, a separate Corps series, at least one animated solo film (arguably two), and in at least a few of the team films? -- most with different characters wielding the ring? Because they were (various degrees of) well written. (...which maybe is the problem, Millar isn't really known for well-written stories but for colorful high-concept audacious stories. ;) ) Why did the GL solo film fail? Because the writing (mostly) failed the characters.

[OJsDad]

Um, Superman is only 3 years older than Capt. America, who was introduced in 1941.  In fact, Wonder Woman was introduced in 1941, Batman was introduced in 1939.  Ironman and Thor are from 1962 and '63. 

I think this guy better go try again. 

[bayonetbrant]

I knew someone would have fun with this :D

[OJsDad]

I knew someone would have fun with this :D

I haven't read a comic in 30+ years, but his theory of the DC hero's being too old sounded like a steaming pile of crap that only took a minute on Wikipedia to confirm. 

[jamus34]

Well I think this guy is garbage but here is what I think about the current state of the CU's.

DC had better success in the past when they were looking to make their properties stand alone. Marvel most definitely did not.

Marvel realized this and decided to bring as many properties they had in house to have more control. They also (and obviously) sketched out a long term plan for the MCU once they realized they could do this (ie Iron Man 1 became a huge hit)

DC kept trying to build the individual properties with split success (Nolan's Batman was obviously a win, the two Superman's were uhg and serviceable, and suicide squad set them back 5 years). I honestly believe they didn't think WW was going to be that big of a hit but got lucky there. Regardless they saw the success of the MCU and very late in the game decided to try to build a DCCU. It has not been good. Two things they need to realize and ASAP is 1) writing is king and 2) with CGI sometimes less is more.

[bayonetbrant]

Suicide Squad was crap world-building and mediocre adaptation of source material, but it made serious bank, so expect more of the same from that team

[JasonPratt]

Suicide Squad was crap world-building and mediocre adaptation of source material, but it made serious bank, so expect more of the same from that team

There's actually a fan theory that much of the plotholes can be fixed by inferring that the villains successfully destroyed the world (and thus the DECU), leaving the Squad surviving (temporarily) in delusions that they won and the status quo was sort of re-established.