OK...it has become chic to suggest that Marvel does better with their properties in the movies because they are not adverse to creating a cohesive universe where their characters cross over in the movies.
What?!?
Does anyone pointing this out as a strategic advantage realize that Iron Man is the only movie that has been released thus far that is starting that trend? And that means there has effectively been NO CROSSOVER BETWEEN MOVIES YET? How can that be a sign of the strategy being a success?
Some people (cough...linked above...cough) just love to find any possible angle to bitch about DC Comics. I'm sure that's not true of ALL of the people putting forth this idea, though.
For the record, I do think that the Marvel Entertainment approach is a helluva lot stronger than Time-Warner's history of giving too much of the control to individual filmmakers. But I do find it hard to argue decisively against giving such control to previously proven artists like Singer & Nolan. If I had to bet on the abilities of Favreau, Singer, and Nolan to helm a super-hero franchise prior to the release of their respective movies, Favreau would have the worst odds of winning.
But the biggest flaw here is thinking the cohesive universe is why Marvel's succeeding when it hasn't even occurred in the market yet to have contributed to their success.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
DC Vs Marvel @ The Movies: Much Ado About Nothing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
DC's big popular characters sometimes work better on their own. You can make Batman awesome, but throw Superman into that universe and then Batman is pretty useless. They are better on their own. I always liked the stories where Batman was the only "superhero". Even adding Batgirl or Robin tends to dilute Batman's character a little.
ReplyDeleteAnd yeah, you pretty much hit this one on the head. All Marvel has done is put out a lot more movies. Batman Begins and Superman Returns were both very successful, Superman somewhat less since they spent way too much money on it. Marvel has had just as many shitty movies as they have good ones. I think Spiderman was awesome, and it definitely benefited from not having a serious Spiderman movie before it (unlike Batman). But for every Spiderman there is a movie like Elektra or Daredevil.
I think they are both doing good movies, and personally I think Green Lantern would be the smartest next movie for DC/WB. I'd steal as much from the Kyle Rayner episode of Superman Animated and make that movie.
Sure Iron Man worked but I am personally dreading the Thor film. If they can't make Wonder Woman work then what chance is there of making a Thor film without it seeming like a horrible parody? I hope it works but there is every chance that this cohesive "film universe" could turn out an utter disaster. People tend to judge things far too soon.
ReplyDeleteGood point on the Thor movie. There's a high possible level of cringetasticness inherent in the idea. And really, Ant-Man and Captain America could easily be embarassments as well...
ReplyDeleteBut a Green Lantern film would be gold.
Two points, the first being really short.
ReplyDelete1. The link in question is questionable considering it's her take on someone else's idea. So no point in any form of berating her...well unless you say she can't think of things like this to talk about.
2. Marvel's approach to their entertainment in media is proving to be much more together than DC. Consider the cartoons. Marvel produces fairly (forget the recent FF or that crap Spidey one awhile ago) well rounded cartoons that link to other characters in their universe. An episode of Spider-Man (90's version) pulls in the X-Men fairly well. DC WAS doing a great job with JLU until it was canceled. But look at a major flaw in the "cohesiveness" of DC in regards to Smallville. Here you have Clark Kent in his "I'm figuring things out" stage of life and who do they bring in to guest star? Cyborg? Really?!? BART Allen?! Aquadude?! Green Arrow? Okay he's pretty good. Because of DC's lack of getting their crap together they missed awesome potential of bring in Bruce Wayne or WW.
As for the movies I have to defend to Marvel mainly due to one point no one has brought up. The crap DC pulled with the JLA movie. It won't have Routh or Bale. And they missed opportunities to lay the grounding of the JLA movie within Supes and BB. Whereas Marvel is looking at a ending with an Avengers movie and is plotting it away with easter eggs popping up in movies (saw Iron Man with Nick Fury and now the Cap shield, and RBJr will be in Hulk) it all leads to it. It's ingenious and cohesive...even if it's not there yet.
1. Well, I'm of the mind that, if you agree with a poorly thought out theory, you're just as silly for giving it credence as the person who originated it was for thinking it up. There's, also, the fact that she's so quick to jump on it because of her hard feelings with DC.
ReplyDelete2. See...it seems like all arguments supporting the idea that Marvel's been so great about how they've worked their stuff in the past requires throwing out their bad examples and dismissing DC's good ones.
DC wasn't pulling crap with the Routh/Bale thing. It is an example of Time/Warner not having the same forethought to have contracts that allow for requiring their actors to reprise their roles in other movies.
It is great that Marvel is thinking ahead on this. They benefit a bit from starting up when comic book movies are becoming more and more successful in the mainstream. One would hope that Time/Warner will try to follow their lead on this.