What is DC Comics doing wrong?

EyeofSauron said:

---

the thing is: most of the marvel movies, that you named, werent actually made by marvel.
as they sold the movie rights to big studios, they were not responsible for the bad movies tnat were made.
Every movie they made after getting back their movie rights was pretty damn good.


also, the Justice league movie is allready in the works, the question is when it will come out (DC President allready said they were making it). They are working on Scripts for a Wonder Woman and a Flash movie atm, Superman probably will be the first in this series of movies.
Im kinda concerned tho, that they will rush the JL movie. Somewhere they said they wanted to make it before the single character movies, which is just stupid.
It might be ok for the US, but i can guarantee you, that it will flop in europe, because we just dont have the following for all the superheros in the JL. Here, people know Superman, and Batman, from the movies.
But as we had our own comics with Asterix, Lucky luke, TinTin and so on, we didnt have the superhero comics back in the days, so they are not that popular to most guys.

That's kind of my point. They sat back and took the money and watched these other studios screw things up left and right. They got fed up and decided to do it themselves and voila', smash success.

DC, well, I don't know if they're doing anything themselves or still selling rights only. At this point, they're still not going after what marvel wanted which was more or less accurate to the comics tellings and consistency between movies and trying to get the movies right. Their response is 'The avengers just made 5 quadrillion bucks, we need to get JL out there ASAP so we can cash in'.

Marvel took over their franchises to get it right and set out a long term far reaching plan. DC's plan is cash in, or so it seems. Plus they seem to be pushing the 52 stuff which, from what i've heard, no one really is into.

When it comes down to it. NO ONE KNOWS what will be popular and what isn't.

Marvel has gotten lucky.

As many people hate Iron Man 2, Thor, The I-Hulk as like them. And there are some CA: TFA detractors as well, though not as many.

I agree that DC trying to make something serious, that really can't bve taken seriously, is the wrong way to go. Hopefully what Marvel has done either by design or not, will wake them up. But from the looks of the new Sups movie they haven't.

Hell, they might as well have changed the color of the Flag. That new Superman suit is ridiculous.

As someone else said a little more eloquently; DC is just a lame universe. Superman has always been boring and they just don't have anything else that interesting.

Marvel has a more interesting lineup.

Marvel for some reason also has more believable characters, even with all their powers many of them have very easy to relate to flaws. Tony Stark in the comics before anything else was a raging alcoholic and has fought that issue for decades. Bigger than life only works because they have flaws that are believable. One thing the darker takes of batman in the comics and games is that he's slowly realizing that his no kill policy is costing innocent lives. I did see the end of smallville and it was better in the 5 minutes during the daily planet than all of Superman Returns.

Rylo said:

---

...Superman has always been boring...

I disagree. Superman is an amazing character; he's just more subtle and thoughtful than a lot of other heros. In the 12 issue series, ALL-STAR SUPERMAN, written by Grant Morrison, illustrated by Frank Quitely and colored by Jamie Grant, Superman is extremely intelligent, funny, empathetic, powerful and always optimistic--even though he is dealing with his own mortality.

It seems funny to me that people are blaming the characters for the failures of certain writers, directors and anyone else that might be involved in their story telling. Art isn't easy.

Barry.

micdavis said:

---

When it comes down to it. NO ONE KNOWS what will be popular and what isn't.

Marvel has gotten lucky.

This! Can thank Jon Favreau and his inspired casting of "Iron Man" for the success of the rest. IM was a 2nd tier character in the Marvel universe at best and a huge gamble for the new studio. It exceeded even their expectations and without that success there would never have been "The Avengers."

Rylo said:

---

As someone else said a little more eloquently; DC is just a lame universe. Superman has always been boring and they just don't have anything else that interesting.

Marvel has a more interesting lineup.

I would argue that DC had more household names than Marvel before Marvel Studios became such a success. DC may have lost an opportunity in exploiting that while Marvel did a remarkable job in bringing their characters to front of mind of an audience who wasn't necessarily that familiar with them.

In any event, I think DC can pull this off and it doesn't have to be a Marvel carbon copy approach. It can work even if it is a little darker than "The Avengers" and it can work with using "Man of Steel" as the jumping off point. If that's even what they choose to do. But then again I am optimistic to a fault.

You could be right, but the flaw would be that they're seemingly using the 52's for Man of Steel and others going forward...

Why is that a flaw? I'm not trying to be funny. Just wondering as I haven't read a comic book in 25 years.

coofunkcurly said:

---

Why is that a flaw? I'm not trying to be funny. Just wondering as I haven't read a comic book in 25 years.

Your loss.

I read plenty of comics. Most of them aren't Marvel or DC.

In fact, after the DC Universe reboot that changed Clark Kent into a Peter Parker clone and Superman into a disaffected alien wearing a terribly designed costume and Supergirl into an alienated alien and a bunch of other terribly designed costumes and poorly written books I gave up on them. I was much more a DC reader than a Marvel reader (I might read 1 or 2 Marvel books monthly).

There's too much good stuff out there... anything by Terry Moore, for example.

I think the thing that DC is doing wrong, at least with movies, is that they seem to be trying to directly compete with Marvel. Green Lantern, if I remember correctly, was rushed so it could compete with Thor and X-M:FC. Now, apparently they are trying to get a Justice League movie together because Avengers did so well. I get that super hero movies are the 'in' thing right now and DC should try to get a slice of that pie, but they really need to do their own thing. Copying Marvel is only going to cause fans to compare the two and since Marvel did it first and did it really well, DC will always be at a disadvantage.

Superman and Lex?

Just saw X-Men First Class. Again with Magneto?! That's FOUR movies where they're against Magneto.
Who else has ever done that? Move On!

Marvel heroes have real lives, and I remember quite a bit about them. Other than Batman, I barely know most DC heroes real names, let alone their private lives. They are very 'cartoonish'. Maybe that's why their cartoons are good.
It seems most Marvel movies are being based off the Ultimates line. It gave a fresh look. Maybe DC is trying that with New 52.

micdavis said:

---

When it comes down to it. NO ONE KNOWS what will be popular and what isn't.

Marvel has gotten lucky.

As many people hate Iron Man 2, Thor, The I-Hulk as like them. And there are some CA: TFA detractors as well, though not as many.

I agree that DC trying to make something serious, that really can't bve taken seriously, is the wrong way to go. Hopefully what Marvel has done either by design or not, will wake them up. But from the looks of the new Sups movie they haven't.

Hell, they might as well have changed the color of the Flag. That new Superman suit is ridiculous.

Maybe you're right with the luck thing as well as the Superman costume.

Rylo said:

---

As someone else said a little more eloquently; DC is just a lame universe. Superman has always been boring and they just don't have anything else that interesting.

Marvel has a more interesting lineup.

Barryjoe said:

---

I disagree. Superman is an amazing character; he's just more subtle and thoughtful than a lot of other heros. In the 12 issue series, ALL-STAR SUPERMAN, written by Grant Morrison, illustrated by Frank Quitely and colored by Jamie Grant, Superman is extremely intelligent, funny, empathetic, powerful and always optimistic--even though he is dealing with his own mortality.

It seems funny to me that people are blaming the characters for the failures of certain writers, directors and anyone else that might be involved in their story telling. Art isn't easy.

Barry.

I agree with Barry here, Superman can be intersting, in comics and in TAS. I heard too that All Star Superman is great, never got to read.

coofunkcurly said:

---

This! Can thank Jon Favreau and his inspired casting of "Iron Man" for the success of the rest. IM was a 2nd tier character in the Marvel universe at best and a huge gamble for the new studio. It exceeded even their expectations and without that success there would never have been "The Avengers."


I would argue that DC had more household names than Marvel before Marvel Studios became such a success. DC may have lost an opportunity in exploiting that while Marvel did a remarkable job in bringing their characters to front of mind of an audience who wasn't necessarily that familiar with them.

In any event, I think DC can pull this off and it doesn't have to be a Marvel carbon copy approach. It can work even if it is a little darker than "The Avengers" and it can work with using "Man of Steel" as the jumping off point. If that's even what they choose to do. But then again I am optimistic to a fault.

Yeahh, IM2 wasn't my favourite too, was off track, but I still could put my finger on - somehow a weak story. Oh yes, DC lost the swing after Batman 1989 to introduce Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern etc. It would have been totally different.

leafman said:

---

I think the thing that DC is doing wrong, at least with movies, is that they seem to be trying to directly compete with Marvel. Green Lantern, if I remember correctly, was rushed so it could compete with Thor and X-M:FC. Now, apparently they are trying to get a Justice League movie together because Avengers did so well. I get that super hero movies are the 'in' thing right now and DC should try to get a slice of that pie, but they really need to do their own thing. Copying Marvel is only going to cause fans to compare the two and since Marvel did it first and did it really well, DC will always be at a disadvantage.

I agree with you, if DC is rushing all their projects, it'll fire backwards - half baked movies and then they are wondering, why it doesn't work…

I heard there used to be a major feud between DC writers and Warner execs who not only wanted to make the movies "their way" but then tried to force DC to write comics "for their movies", although most of the people who were involved are now gone, it's still lingering somewhere.

The problem with many DC characters is that you have to understand that they don't do "dark, edgy, grubby" Characters like Superman, Wonder Woman, etc are bright colourful symbols. If you make a dark, self-doubting, edgy Superman you completely missed the point, he should be an inspiring figure.

When somebody says "Superman is a lame boyscout" they usually mean "He doesn't shoot people in the face with a bazooka and doesn't make a wisecrack about their sexuality afterwards and that that's why Superman is lame."

I think doing a JLA film out of the blue could work if the people making the film don't lose their nerve. Stand firm and tell a good story and sell the characters as they are. Just like they did with Thor. Don't try to change things in an attempt to lure the lowest common denominator because you end up with third-rate material.

I'd love to see Batman in a Gotham hit by an earthquake. He pulls off some amazing stunts to save people, but as a tsunami is coming, he's way over his head. Then cue John Williams and have that blue-red-yellow streak appear in the sky. Superman slows down the tsunami with his ice breath while Green Lantern makes a dam to protect the city ... While Batman is trapped in a collapsing building, have Wonder Woman pull him out. Batman may not be able to hold back a collapsing building, but he knows the city better than anybody else and can coordinate the effort to keep power going and the rescue services reach their destination. Once the crisis is over Batman knows the earthquake is not an accident. Slowly reveal a major threat, show that Batman is smart and skilled enough to outmaneuver any of the heroes with great powers, have him lift Green Lantern's ring, sneak up on Superman, pull a move on WW she didn't expect etc ... Make Superman an honest, courageous man who uses his power to save people, gives hope and inspires people. He could rule our planet like a God, but he decided that we should rule ourselves, he's just there to help and give everybody a chance. Wonder Woman is compassionate, understanding, always looking for a peaceful resolution, but once the gloves do come off she can kick ass on an epic level and will go where not even Batman or Superman want to go ... These heroes have never worked together. Everybody is surprised that Batman is handling Gotham without any superpowers. Guys like Flash, Aquaman and Martian Manhunter can be introduced as things move along.

If you can sell that, JLA will be as big as Avengers.

Dude, why aren't you in Hollywood yet?

I think that there are too many embarrasing heroes in the DC stable. I find Wonder Woman and Aquaman cringe worthy.......I love Superman, but he's kind of 1 dimensional...and when Singer tried to give him multiple dimensions, he just came off as a dead beat, stalking loser......Batman's been done to death now, and TBH i don't see him working in a team.

Green Lantern? Well, i guess the character has potential, but there's a long way to go before i forgive the lamentable GL movie.....is there anyone else?

oh yes, The Martian Manhunter......that's the kind of character name that would get you beaten up at school for mentioning.

I honestly think DC needs to work on connecting these characters to the real world.....which might be difficult as they all live in made up, analogous cities.......

I truly hope Man of Steel is ....interesting, clever and witty enough to be the springboard for more palatable DC movies.....

Rich

The point is that Superman, Wonder Woman etc aren't really characters, they are personifications of ideals, they represent values that we should all aspire to. They wield vast powers, to represent how much we can achieve with the right motivation and cause. They represent Truth, Justice, Compassion, Integrity and our ability to fight adversity no matter how bad things get. When Superman saves the day, it's really about the people who put out fires, rescue others, raise money, travel to far out places to help others in trouble.

If you tone them down to grim and dark, you lose everything they stand for.

Dark is merely a fad, it's not the hallmark of a greater sophistication, of better storytelling or any other superlative, it's just a marketing gimmick.

coofunkcurly said:

---

Why is that a flaw? I'm not trying to be funny. Just wondering as I haven't read a comic book in 25 years.

I'd have to go back and look up the specifics that have been posted, but it's along the lines of they've changed his origin a bit, I believe he's now royalty. He's weaker, the suit is at least partially responsible for his powers, they've changed the suit, and there's more, but I just can't remember offhand.

They changed him (and others apparently) simply for the sake of change, not because it was an evolution, or because it made sense.

If true, for the movie to succeed, it's going to have to be a helluva story and amazingly done to get the masses to overlook the changes.

And don't forget the actual reason for this movie. That being that is being done 'just under the wire' to avoid losing the rights (at least based on what's been posted here in the past). Making a movie to keep the rights doesn't usually result in a great flick, though it's not a given. Just as making one to cash in on someone else's success rarely works. Fact is, if there was no avengers movie - the JL talk would still be dead. I think if they use the Avengers success only as a reason to start up JL again, that is fine. As long as the goal is to make a good movie first and everything else is second. Sadly, I believe the first goal will be to cash in and make as much money off the avengers success as possible, story will be second, third or worse.

@cboath: But how much "power-down" makes Supes still Superman? They powered him down in the 80's now again?

I fear the number crunchers are on the cash binge again…

@clancampbell: TDK was never that much of a team player, look at JLU, he operated more alone. It's also very difficult to root greek mythology and Atlantis myth in the real world, unless someone comes with a bright idea. Or you can say: screw it - as far as TDK concerned, he roots back to a real world enviroment as what can be possibly made of money and tech and everything else is possible, so that fantastic characters can appear.

Rotwang said:

---

The point is that Superman, Wonder Woman etc aren't really characters, they are personifications of ideals, they represent values that we should all aspire to. They wield vast powers, to represent how much we can achieve with the right motivation and cause. They represent Truth, Justice, Compassion, Integrity and our ability to fight adversity no matter how bad things get. When Superman saves the day, it's really about the people who put out fires, rescue others, raise money, travel to far out places to help others in trouble.

If you tone them down to grim and dark, you lose everything they stand for.

Dark is merely a fad, it's not the hallmark of a greater sophistication, of better storytelling or any other superlative, it's just a marketing gimmick.

It works for Batman because that's who he is. But you're right.. it can't apply to the others.

In fact DC did movies long before Marvel, Superman was out in the late 70's, followed later by the original Batman in 89, it seems Marvel just waited that little bit longer, for the technology of film making to allow them to make the most out of the visual aspect of their films, which for a comic book movie is a large chunk of it. DC played their big card with Superman very early on and as its such a classic film, anything else since just hasn't lived up?

CommanderCody said:

---

In fact DC did movies long before Marvel, Superman was out in the late 70's, followed later by the original Batman in 89, it seems Marvel just waited that little bit longer, for the technology of film making to allow them to make the most out of the visual aspect of their films, which for a comic book movie is a large chunk of it. DC played their big card with Superman very early on and as its such a classic film, anything else since just hasn't lived up?

Marvel did not wait - they made several B type movies including Captain America, Fantastic Four and The Punisher (and arguably the Blade series).

They tried some TV stuff: The Incredible Hulk, Spider-Man, Daredevil (via the Hulk), Thor (via the Hulk), Doctor Strange and Nick Fury. It was obviously hit or miss and it all stands out as pretty dated and campy to me (although I have a soft spot for that Doctor Strange TV movie - although that might just be sugar coated memories of something I haven't seen in 20+ years).

DC did not play their "big card" early on. Superman: The Movie came out 40 years after the debut of the comic book hero and after the successful George Reeves' TV show (1956) and the serial adventures starring Kirk Allyn (1948/50).

Even Batman predates the 1989 Tim Burton/Michael Keaton romp. There's the obvious Adam West series in the 60's - which spawned a movie in 1966. There was also the 1949 serial Batman and Robin with Robert Lowery and Johnny Duncan.

Let's not forgt some of DC's other blockbusters: Supergirl and Swamp Thing in the early 80s - and Steel, Jonah Hex and Catwoman a little more recently.

...and DC tried their hand at TV as well outside of the above mentioned Batman. We also had a Batgirl TV movie spin-off, a failed Justice League pilot, 2 Legion of Superhero specials and the succesful Wonder Woman series of the 70s - and a failed pilot reboot of WW just a few years ago. Let's not forget Smallville, Lois & Clark, there was a Superboy series in the late 80s/early 90s, The Flash (which brought Mark Hamill back to the screen), Human Target and even the Swamp Thing had a short run. (I have to note the Capt. Marvel/Shazam Kroft TV series of the 70s - which I think might've been a DC character by that point. Which I absolutely loved as a kid, but I'm sure doesn't hold up well at all).

Anyway you look at it, both major comics companies have had their struggles and successes and nothing came over night or early on.

Ever since Keaton and Burton left batman, DC has always seemed money driven. Nothing more typical of it that the Batmans after Keaton. The logic seemed to be how many stars can we stuff in here to draw people to the theater. The result were flicks that weren't very good or simply very bad.

The only exception to that so far seems to be Nolan's Batman's. Everything else has been about chasing the dollar it seems.

Someone said Marvel just got lucky this go round. Luck is one or two hits. IM, IM2, Thor, CA, Hulk (with norton), the Avengers were all very good to excellent. 1-2 is luck, 6 is not luck, but doing something very right. Marvel took the opinion (it's an an interview with them somewhere) that they could take these things in house so they were true to the comics and they'd have final say on everything and do it right and still make money. That would seem to be why it's working for them.

DC, on the other hand, just wants to make money and everything else is secondary. Until that changes and they put people in charge who care about doing it right and being true to their characters, it won't change.

I'd like to see DC take on showing Superman's backstory. I think about what he must have felt with all his power (even if it was fully realized) while growing up, having to hide it, not understanding why he is the way he is, what's the point of it, etc. They make references to it in the 78 film when Clark is talking to Jonathon near the very first of the movie. Having a good actor who can show a lot of emotion and draw the on the audience's empathy would be necessary. Focus at least half the movie on that, then have him roll into some real action. If done right, it could set up a good sequal, to bring in more money for them.

smallville?