What is DC Comics doing wrong?

JD, in this thread I wanted to focus on the movies, TV doesn't count, even if they had their fingers in it. It's the movies I feel DC could do better.

JD said:

---

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.

I may be a bit opposite of what some are saying. So please, just hear my little rant. DC in my opinion as far as movies go can not be fully what the characters were originally. Marvel has made their movies bright, flashy, large scale, and they did it well with a lot of action. DC has started a good line with Chris Nolan in several ways, if more movie makers for other DC movies and the JLA would follow them. TDK is dark and it is gritty and edgy. However, it has deep meaning in the story. The story goes somewhere. And you can tell by the previews of TDK Rises that there is light in some way at the end of the story and although Batman is edgy and dark his values have still shown through.

Now translate Nolan's realistic style of filming and story over to the super powered heroes of DC. How do you make superman more real and relateable. One way I guess is to dumb down his powers just a bit so he does feel pain. Doesn't kill him but he feels pain.

My view is hard to explain. I can visualize it, but it's hard to convey. Create a large story that is deep, and emotional. That's where DC can go that Marvel hasn't so much. They have big action and large scenes. DC can be dark, but it can be full of emotion. A serious take on the super heroes and their lives.

Bring them together in some way that unites them in a serious story full of emotion, struggle and even heartache. Heck, for some of the lesser characters like in Marvel, throw 2-3 together as though they have been trying to come together and do what no one has. Have one of them sacrific and die to unite the rest? Far out, but just brainstorming.

Superman and Batman don't need reboots to do the JLA. Other characters need to be done first though. WW, Flash, GL even needs a reboot in a more serious tone before the JLA could be done right. Film it in a realistic style and with deeper meaning then a large action movie. And when they come together at the end or they finally unite at watchtower for the first time, don't have them in costume. Have them as Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent, Hal Jordan, Diana, etc. Although superhuman, show their humanity. Normal people with normal lives, with abnormal abilities and responsibilities.

Maybe way off base and may make no sense to most, but like I said, I can visualize what I like in a story and film, just hard to convey.

YenChih Lin said:

---

JD, in this thread I wanted to focus on the movies, TV doesn't count, even if they had their fingers in it. It's the movies I feel DC could do better.

WTF?

#1. You can't dictate how a thread will progress as things are discussed.

#2. Your thread title is more that ambiguous... if not somewhat misleading. What is DC Comics doing wrong? We could start talking about the 'new 52,' DC turning Clark Kent into a Peter Parker clone and we could talk even more about the new gay Green Lantern.

#3. Your original post asks "What do you think DC should, could or must do to be successful as Marvel?" doesn't limit the discussion to movies. Yes, the preceding paragraph talks about the Avengers, Iron Man, Batman, JLA and Superman but then goes off on a tangent about the new 52 and those costumes... so you're not even following your 'rules' for this thread.

#4. I was addressing a person who replied in this thread and I think my reply was totally adequate given the conversation.

JD,
@ 1. I didn't dictate, I wanted to lay the focus on the movies, it's the movies I feel that DC/WB could do better.

@ 2. Ok, to be more specific: What are DC and WB doing wrong with their superhero movies, where Marvel suceeds at the moment? (I couldn't cram that in the title)

@ 3. see above for clarification

@ 4. Ahh, ok!

YenChih Lin said:

---

JD,
@ 1. I didn't dictate, I wanted to lay the focus on the movies, it's the movies I feel that DC/WB could do better.

@ 2. Ok, to be more specific: What are DC and WB doing wrong with their superhero movies, where Marvel suceeds at the moment? (I couldn't cram that in the title)

@ 3. see above for clarification

@ 4. Ahh, ok!

You might want to start addressing other folks who have gone off your specific topic.

Better yet, start your own board or become a moderator so you can make sure everything is micromanaged to your discretion.

The way I see it, DC is still stuck in that 1950's way of things. Their heroes are clean and wholesome and are the embodiment of goodness. Even with how they're being written now, you can still see it. Marvel has managed to make their character real and closer to what the everyday person can identify with. They're darker and grittier and suffer from the same problems regular people do.

People nowadays want dark and gritty. That's why batman does so well. Sadly of the main line DC heroes, he's really the only one.

I wouldn't say they're very clean and wholesome. "Identity Crisis" will show you just how not 1950s DC has become. Admittedly I mostly read Bat-titles post New 52, but even Billy Batson is anything but a goody-good now. I'm actually fed up with the newer characterization of Superman from New 52 and Earth One because he's turned into a Batman-lite jerk.

What is your problem? Do you really want to push people's button on intend? I was just remarking and you are attacking me?

JD said:

---

You might want to start addressing other folks who have gone off your specific topic.

Better yet, start your own board or become a moderator so you can make sure everything is micromanaged to your discretion.

RougeAvenger81 said:

---

I may be a bit opposite of what some are saying. So please, just hear my little rant. DC in my opinion as far as movies go can not be fully what the characters were originally. Marvel has made their movies bright, flashy, large scale, and they did it well with a lot of action. DC has started a good line with Chris Nolan in several ways, if more movie makers for other DC movies and the JLA would follow them. TDK is dark and it is gritty and edgy. However, it has deep meaning in the story. The story goes somewhere. And you can tell by the previews of TDK Rises that there is light in some way at the end of the story and although Batman is edgy and dark his values have still shown through.

Now translate Nolan's realistic style of filming and story over to the super powered heroes of DC. How do you make superman more real and relateable. One way I guess is to dumb down his powers just a bit so he does feel pain. Doesn't kill him but he feels pain.

My view is hard to explain. I can visualize it, but it's hard to convey. Create a large story that is deep, and emotional. That's where DC can go that Marvel hasn't so much. They have big action and large scenes. DC can be dark, but it can be full of emotion. A serious take on the super heroes and their lives.

Bring them together in some way that unites them in a serious story full of emotion, struggle and even heartache. Heck, for some of the lesser characters like in Marvel, throw 2-3 together as though they have been trying to come together and do what no one has. Have one of them sacrific and die to unite the rest? Far out, but just brainstorming.

Superman and Batman don't need reboots to do the JLA. Other characters need to be done first though. WW, Flash, GL even needs a reboot in a more serious tone before the JLA could be done right. Film it in a realistic style and with deeper meaning then a large action movie. And when they come together at the end or they finally unite at watchtower for the first time, don't have them in costume. Have them as Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent, Hal Jordan, Diana, etc. Although superhuman, show their humanity. Normal people with normal lives, with abnormal abilities and responsibilities.

Maybe way off base and may make no sense to most, but like I said, I can visualize what I like in a story and film, just hard to convey.

It's a good idea, and I don't think you're wrong. The problem is DC and whatever studios control the titles. Short of Nolan himself, who isn't the studios or DC, all they care about at the moment is cashing in and not doing a good story. Until the story becomes as important, or moreso, than the profit line, I don't see it happening. I believe the words from someone at DC were they wanted to get the JLA flick off the ground 'to cash in on the success of the avengers'.....

YenChih Lin said:

---

What is your problem? Do you really want to push people's button on intend? I was just remarking and you are attacking me?

Funny, I see it the other way around... I came here made a few comments that talked about the subject at hand and I get chastised and berated because the thread didn't do the way you intended to?!?

Someone stated that Marvel waited to get into the film making business. I corrected them - I further stated that they tried television and gave more examples. You whined that "TV didn't count" and you wanted to "focus on movies" - well, if you want threads to progress in a dictatorial fashion, I'd suggest starting your own board.

Okay, back on topic everyone.

If you look at the big picture, DC really isn't doing a whole lot wrong when expanding to other media.

Dark Knight is in the top 5 grossing movies of all time. Although I dislike the Nolan Bat series strongly, they have been very successful and Dark Knight Rises is expected to do very well.

The Batman series that started in 1989 - especially the first one was very well received. The Batman TV series of the 60s had an undeniable impact on pop culture.

Smallville ran for 10 seasons. It was on a smaller network and as far as I know was never a ratings smash - but nearly 10 years is no small feat.

Superman Returns was not what anyone expected or wanted. The success of the Superman films (mostly 1 & 2) is undeniable.

It's hard to argue that DC has not had success or is not experiencing success right now (through Dark Knight/Rises).

Marvel got real lucky with Iron Man. And they had the foresight to start their Marvel Movie Universe with just a little add-on that ran after the credits. They gave a 'has been' actor a chance as Tony Stark, a pretty much unproven action movie director with Favreau and lucked out with Gwyneth Paltrow.

They got real lucky, I don't think anyone could've predicted the success of Iron Man - and the way the built on that success was just perfect.

DC never really looked at the big picture. The tenure of the heroes tends to be much longer and storied than Marvel. When Superman came out in 1978, most of the Marvel Universe was 17 years old - whereas Superman was already 40 and had several video projects already behind him.

DC just pieced out their properties. Superman and Batman were their big commodities and the minor players they could sell were sold to whomever would pay without much thought to any 'movie universe.'

Marvel did the same thing - that's why we don't see Spidey or the FF with the Avengers. But, they managed to scrape together a few things as contracts expired and by some miracle everything fell in place (almost) perfectly and we had Iron Man, Cap and Thor...

I think those that say "DC just isn't interesting" are pretty much spot on,face it you a handful of very interesting major characters:

Batman
Green Lantern
Flash

And then some o-kay ones:

Superman
Wonder Woman
Aqua Man

The rest are plain forgettable,and to top it off (to me anyway) DC's BEST are the oddballs:

Johna Hex
Hellblazer
Swamp Thing

And a whole host of others,they had some really good one-shots in 80's that I loved but probably no one remembers.

I liked the Hex and Hellblazer films,Batman is well done,Green Lantern was decent so in a way I hope they focus on the good and maybe do up some of the side characters more then anything.

And I'm calling it,JL will flop-hard.

One way Marvel has done better is by keeping the feel and pieces of the comics origins, but knowing that to translate it to the big screen you have to divert from some of the original story line. Hint at things in the movie that make you say, "Oh, I remember that from....." but it doesn't have to follow a specific storyline. Again, Nolan and Goyer have done great in this aspect as well.

You could do anything in a JLA movie. Villans could cross over into other heroes worlds so to speak. You could have Lex Luther as a minor villan as a political figure as he was in some of the comics, rather then a main villan. Using real life style political power to help his hidden agenda. Helping a greater villan for some reason. Brainiac could be the main villian, but not a giant spider robot. Make it similar to the smallville character. More human so to speak. Penguin could also be trying to gain political power for hidden reasons. Just not mayor, maybe congress with Lex, etc. Don't make him some crazy guy with flippers. He could be the penguin simply because of his old fashioned suits and eyeglass. Penguin tux. I always thought Philip Seamore Hoffaman would have made a great penguin.

You can add secondary villans in a JLA movie, they just can't have those over powering "main villan" feels. Then they are all battling to be the head villian.

Keep the foundation of the comics. Stick to the true characters origins and the reasons they are great, but play with the stories, characters and intermingle the villians. Hollywood changes stuff against what the fans want anyways.Why are they scared to think outside the box to make a good story now?

Oh no! They didn't… DC redesigned the logo?? That's my reaction: The New DC Comics Logo - YouTube

Yeah.....they changed it a few months ago......

Russ257 said:

---

i wouldnt say Alan scott was lesser known. Just more old school.

He's the original Green Lantern, period.
I met his creator on 3 occasions before he died and believe me, he never intended for Alan to end up the way he is now.

(I can imagine his son isn't crazy about the changes, either...)

I accept that the 52 Alan Scott is another version of the character BUT he's not the original Green Lantern character. He's a badly thought-out revamp by a writer who has a mixed past history and a political agenda which is not a great recipe for long-term success...

And by the way, for a company that's wanting to introduce "ethnic diversity" (plug in in your favorite, politically correct cause into an existing character but make sure you completely destroy the legacy first!) into its line, the worst thing they could have done beyond bringing back Vibe ("DC's Dazzler") is making a gay character with "flaming green" powers!

The decision to do this was all at the behest of the writer of the new "Earth-2" comic book, James Robinson. Robinson hasn't had a great track record lately writing comics but he is a big rights advocate even at the expense of introducing controversy where it doesn't belong and retconning characters instead of creating new ones.

The E-2 retcon is dumb to begin with because it does away with so much rich DC History...
DC doesn't have a World War II era anymore and all these characters who were mentors and teachers for the JLA-era and beyond are now being recast as contemporaries....

... and if people thought the original JLA costumes were bad (I disagree-- they're classic Golden Age designs), the new Jim Lee-crew designs are godawful and "very 1990s". The worst aspects of the Image-style super characters are scribed all over those designs.

I'd hope for a return of common sense to the way DC heritage is handled but you shouldn't expect it with the knuckleheads in charge right now... and unfortunately, many fans are still collecting this swill because "they have to keep their collections intact!"

You have to go off the official DC sites, btw, to read ANY criticism of editorial and the direction DC is taking now. You just won't find it on those sites and many of the news sites that depend on DC news script releases (Comic Book Resources, Newsarama, etc.). "Everybody" seems to think 52 is a great way to restart/reboot an ENTIRE comic book publishing line!

Yea, there is no other reason to add that into a character other then making a political statement. Now granted, some older comics did make mention (and I mean just a mention) of controversial things back in the day, such as civil rights, womens rights, etc. They made a small statement just so people would know that, hey this issue is out there, most think its wrong and we do too. Making a character in the way the 52 has, serves no true purpose other then the writers personal and political views from my point of view. I will still read it. I've got no issue with the character being homosexual. I just don't agree with the fact that politics are being introduced into a comicbook story that much. It's not necessary.

Yeah, but you have to admit the "flaming" powers are an unintentional joke/slur depending on how you look at it...!

*******

As for me, I don't collect monthlies anymore.

I've had it with the editors and writers at both DC and Marvel.
There's only so much junk you can take when the price of a comic mag exceeds $3... I can remember 60/65/75-cent comics being much better than most of the junk priced over $2. Seems to be comics get less fun the more expensive they get!

The sad point of fact is that the only group doing the characters right (DC) are the animation crews. There have been several very good Batman series, Superman, Justice League, Brave & the Bold, Young Justice any maybe half the direct-to-video films are actually decent.

Can't say I've seen much from Marvel other than Spectacular Spider-Man that's been good. DC generally has better animation crews working on their characters. Mixed feelings on the current Avengers series (but still better than the 90s version) but I definitely don't care for the Ultimate Spider-Man series -- that's possibly the most expensive, poorly-written superhero show I've seen in the past 30 years!!! That's even counting Superfriends and Spider-Woman. (At least the latter two shows were cheaply made... There's some money going into Ultimate Spider-Man and it's just a craptacular show in spite of that...) It's that bad...!

As an ex comic store owner, I would like to chime in...In the end of the day, it is all about the money! Marvel comics for years tried to sell, sell, sell. They really did not care what they produced but looped every comic together so you would have to purchase every title just to read a complete story. DC attempted the same thing.

Marvel sold off rights to anyone with the right amount of $$$ and that is why we consistently saw so much garbage as far as films.

The reason why DC has so much success with their animated line is just the plain fact that the people that create those films are fans who grew up with the characters and now are in those positions that permit them to bring a good product.

The movie industry does not really care too much unless the people behind the funding really stay true to the characters and try to provide a great movie. Too many times the script is written by people who do not have the right vision and even when they did, it gets re-written so much that the end result is pure kaka.

This thread had some very interesting view points and ideas. Remember that we are all fans and have an idea of what we want to see and how our characters are viewed on the big screen.

I believe that the last Batman films were really successful for DC due to them really trying to stay true to the more dark and gritty version (what people want to see). What I have seen of the Superman film so far...I do not feel that it will be much of a success with the rout that they are taking.

JLA? will be rushed to compete with the Avengers and still will not be up to par. Look what happened with the Wonder women series? Smallville? I watched every singe episode and thought the show was going into the crapper season after season. As soon as a saw a really good episode and thought they they go their **** together, it followed by 2 - 3 really bad ones. Even the very last season go me really hooked and bummed out at the same time but I still feel that they ended it correctly.

Sorry for rambling but the only real way that DC can come out with a real good product is by going to the books that really had a great story and a good following by fans. Take that and make it into a great feature by the people who created that series and maybe even talk with the animated staff because they know how to make a good product. If I were them I would even read some of these posts to get a real opinion on what fans think, want, and need.

~J

Russ257 said:

---

i wouldnt say Alan scott was lesser known. Just more old school.

It's not even the real Alan Scott, though (thank the gods).

It's a rebooted young Alan Scott from Earth-2. (or some such Earth-duplicate).

Personally I think that the major problem DC have is that their characters are not as well known (over here in the UK, anyway). I mean my 5 year old loves Batman, Spiderman and Iron Man. I think it's fair to say that that would be safe bet for most kids over here.

Don't get me wrong I know the rest of the characters have got a following but I honestly think that if you asked the general public here the only DC characters they'd know would be Batman, Superman and maybe Wonder Woman but that would be about it.

Wasn't their talk of a WW reboot not long ago? What happened to that? I'm sure a WW movie would do ok here, but I don't think it would be massive.

Same with Superman, I know the CR movies were popular here but I don't think SR did well. Persoanlly (apart from on this board) I've heard NO talk of the MOS movie. I honestly think Superman has become irrellevant in this day and age but maybe that's just me.

The GL bombed (I'm not sure how it did in the US) I haven't seen it, I should watch it really but RR and the computer generated costume (is that true?) puts me off.

Now, I'd just like to add that I'm talking here purely as a comic book MOVIE fan, (I don't think I've read a comic book for maybe 15/20 years).

I've actually heard people say that they thought EVERY comic book character was a Marvel creation (and that Stan Lee created them all). When I was in the Avengers movie (before the movie started) there were a couple sat infront of us talking and the BF was telling his GF that the only reason Spiderman and BATMAN weren't in the Avengers was because they had their own movies coming out. The GF actually asked why SUPERMAN wasn't included. In saying all that about DC I've got friends that love the Blade trilogy but didn't know he was Marvel character.

I think a JL movie could and would work if done properly but it'll need the MOS movie to come out and do WELL, a Batman reboot (depending on how Nolan leaves it) a Wonder Woman movie and then have whoever else they're planning on having in the JL as background characters in these films to introduce them to the general public. Yes it's copying the Avengers format but in my opinion it's the only way they can do it. I can almost guarantee that A JL movie will need Superman and Batman to carry it.

Barryjoe said:

---

I disagree. Superman is an amazing character; he's just more subtle and thoughtful than a lot of other heros.

Barry.

That's the first time I've heard anyone call the Man of Steel subtle.

The best Marvel movies are the ones they made themselves. No one knows your characters like you do. DC needs their own studio.

They came up with New 52.