DC/Marvel Films

[DallasEast]

This is the DC movie page and this is the Marvel movie page. In my opinion, one could weigh the classics (e.g. The Dark Knight, The Avengers), duds (e.g. Catwoman, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengence), animation, etc., from each comics universe and come to one conclusion:

Marvel has, is, and seemingly will continue keep kicking DC's collective butts (I really wanted to use the other word). I think DC should be forever thankful of the Christopher Nolan contributions (e.g. Knights, Man of Steel). Otherwise, their side of the equation would look even more sadly lopsided.

Sorry for the rant. It just peeves me that a company with the rich legacy of DC lags behind Marvel in movie productivity. At the very least, both companies should be pumping out equally entertaining products neck and neck. Then again, DC is not creative enough to produce a standalone, big screen vehicle for its number three big hitter, Wonder Woman. DC's impotency for not successfully getting its warehouse full of characters (outside of Batman and Superman) to the entertainment market just... drives... me... nuts.

/rant

 

[cml750]

This is the DC movie page and this is the Marvel movie page. In my opinion, one could weigh the classics (e.g. The Dark Knight, The Avengers), duds (e.g. Catwoman, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengence), animation, etc., from each comics universe and come to one conclusion:

Marvel has, is, and seemingly will continue keep kicking DC's collective butts (I really wanted to use the other word). I think DC should be forever thankful of the Christopher Nolan contributions (e.g. Knights, Man of Steel). Otherwise, their side of the equation would look even more sadly lopsided.

Sorry for the rant. It just peeves me that a company with the rich legacy of DC lags behind Marvel in movie productivity. At the very least, both companies should be pumping out equally entertaining products neck and neck. Then again, DC is not creative enough to produce a standalone, big screen vehicle for its number three big hitter, Wonder Woman. DC's impotency for not successfully getting its warehouse full of characters (outside of Batman and Superman) to the entertainment market just... drives... me... nuts.

/rant

I agree Marvel is doing a better at bringing the comics to the big screen. The only good DC ones to me were Nolan's Batman movies. I absolutely hated Man of Steel. I thought it was one of the worst movies I had EVER seen. I have never been more disappointed about a movie. I thought Whedon's Avengers was the best comic film I had ever seen.

 

[PJTHEDOORS]

I liked Man of Steel. Avengers had as much destruction as Man of Steel, but people hate Steel because of the destruction. Alot are too connected to the Reeves Superman, and can't let go.

 

[TheDallasDon]

My favorite era of comics is coming with the new x-men.......Bishop, Cable, Apocalypse....TIME TRAVEL! Just hope they dont mess it up

 

[DallasEast]

I agree Marvel is doing a better at bringing the comics to the big screen. The only good DC ones to me were Nolan's Batman movies. I absolutely hated Man of Steel. I thought it was one of the worst movies I had EVER seen. I have never been more disappointed about a movie. I thought Whedon's Avengers was the best comic film I had ever seen.

I wholeheartedly disagree. My personal opinions of comics adaptations comes from many years of buying and collecting titles, almost exclusively DC and Marvel. To be honest though, I stopped buying titles full-time around 1993 and then began purchasing a handful once a year.

Christopher Nolan served as producer of Man of Steel, deferring to Zach Snyder as director. Still, his vision of Kal-El is quite evident in the film. In my opinion, what moviegoers saw on the big screen was an excellent final product of the Superman titles decades-long evolution in the comics. For me, it was quite profound how much he infused the true nature of the characters into a movie plot. I would not say the characters were chillingly good, like Heath Ledger's Joker, which is the primary reason why I would not place Steel over The Dark Knight in adaptive quality.

 

[Roadtrip635]

This is the DC movie page and this is the Marvel movie page. In my opinion, one could weigh the classics (e.g. The Dark Knight, The Avengers), duds (e.g. Catwoman, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengence), animation, etc., from each comics universe and come to one conclusion:

Marvel has, is, and seemingly will continue keep kicking DC's collective butts (I really wanted to use the other word). I think DC should be forever thankful of the Christopher Nolan contributions (e.g. Knights, Man of Steel). Otherwise, their side of the equation would look even more sadly lopsided.

Sorry for the rant. It just peeves me that a company with the rich legacy of DC lags behind Marvel in movie productivity. At the very least, both companies should be pumping out equally entertaining products neck and neck. Then again, DC is not creative enough to produce a standalone, big screen vehicle for its number three big hitter, Wonder Woman. DC's impotency for not successfully getting its warehouse full of characters (outside of Batman and Superman) to the entertainment market just... drives... me... nuts.

/rant

Granted I haven't read any comics in quite some time, but DC had always been behind Marvel in overall popularity which I'm sure plays a large part in their ability to produce and market their stable of characters to a mass market. Overall, IMO, Marvel has more interesting characters that probably lend themselves to the big screen better than DC does.

I was disappointed in the Daredevil/Elektra movies, they could and should have been so much better, it's hard to overcome bad casting. I was hoping for more of the Frank Miller treatment of DD, darker, more gritty.

 

[cml750]

I wholeheartedly disagree. My personal opinions of comics adaptations comes from many years of buying and collecting titles, almost exclusively DC and Marvel. To be honest though, I stopped buying titles full-time around 1993 and then began purchasing a handful once a year.

Christopher Nolan served as producer of Man of Steel, deferring to Zach Snyder as director. Still, his vision of Kal-El is quite evident in the film. In my opinion, what moviegoers saw on the big screen was an excellent final product of the Superman titles decades-long evolution in the comics. For me, it was quite profound how much he infused the true nature of the characters into a movie plot. I would not say the characters were chillingly good, like Heath Ledger's Joker, which is the primary reason why I would not place Steel over The Dark Knight in adaptive quality.

I guess I am just an old school Superman fan. I haven't read a comic since the early 80's. That being said, my biggest problem with the movie was not the character, although different from the Superman I grew up with, but the mind numbing pace of the movie and overdone action/fight scenes. I thought this was a young teenagers movie. To me they dropped too little story around way too much action. There were multiple people who booed at the end in the theater I watched it in. Heck, even my 20 year old son who went to see it with me thought it was way overdone and disliked it. I knew it would not be a Donner film but thought it would be better than it was. I am glad you liked it but it was not for me.

 

[DallasEast]

I liked Man of Steel. Avengers had as much destruction as Man of Steel, but people hate Steel because of the destruction. Alot are too connected to the Reeves Superman, and can't let go.

I'm not sure I would agree that the destructive level of the two movies were that similar. New York was under siege in The Avengers but even the Chitauri invasion force did not inflict the same about of overall damage as the Kryptonian terra former did to Metropolis in Man of Steel. I would estimate forty percent of Metropolis was leveled by the end of the movie. Leveled, as in practically flattened rubble. Much of New York was still left standing by the time the invasion portal closed at the end of The Avengers.

I think your Reeves assessment is sound. I also think the same types of associations extend to other remakes of comics adaptations. For example, Batman's origins extend back to the late thirties/early forties. The character's titles, along with others, had to endure a warped 1950's adjustment in storytelling because of the Comics Code. Eventually, it was influential enough that the Batman television serial of the 1960's as a reflection of the nonsense. Tim Burton's Batman was also warped in the same fashion, but to a much lesser agree. Then again, Burton is warped too. Nonetheless, some people, still to this day, believe those versions of Batman, The Joker, are the accurate character representatives when they are not. Thankfully, Nolan got it right.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I never was a big DC comic book fan in the first place with a few exceptions. Always was a marvel for fan and that continues with the movies.

 

[cml750]

I never was a big DC comic book fan in the first place with a few exceptions. Always was a marvel for fan and that continues with the movies.

Superman was really the only DC character I really read regularly.

 

[DallasEast]

Granted I haven't read any comics in quite some time, but DC had always been behind Marvel in overall popularity which I'm sure plays a large part in their ability to produce and market their stable of characters to a mass market. Overall, IMO, Marvel has more interesting characters that probably lend themselves to the big screen better than DC does.

I was disappointed in the Daredevil/Elektra movies, they could and should have been so much better, it's hard to overcome bad casting. I was hoping for more of the Frank Miller treatment of DD, darker, more gritty.

True, DC has lagged behind Marvel for decades. Marvel overtook DC in the 1980's mainly due to the upsurge in popularity of the X-Men titles (mainly The Uncanny X-Men). I also agree that the Marvel characters translate better since they are more based on human mortal frailty, sometime Stan Lee made certain would differentiate his universe from then juggernaut of DC's. Still, DC has a untapped wealth of characters and stories. It's pathetic in this age of movie technology that they go untold or told well.

I'm 100% behind you on the Daredevil/Elektra incarnations. Thankfully, they were not as bad as the 80's Punisher or the recent Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengence (what a joke of a movie ).

 

[cml750]

I'm not sure I would agree that the destructive level of the two movies were that similar. New York was under siege in The Avengers but even the Chitauri invasion force did not inflict the same about of overall damage as the Kryptonian terra former did to Metropolis in Man of Steel. I would estimate forty percent of Metropolis was leveled by the end of the movie. Leveled, as in practically flattened rubble. Much of New York was still left standing by the time the invasion portal closed at the end of The Avengers.

I think your Reeves assessment is sound. I also think the same types of associations extend to other remakes of comics adaptations. For example, Batman's origins extend back to the late thirties/early forties. The character's titles, along with others, had to endure a warped 1950's adjustment in storytelling because of the Comics Code. Eventually, it was influential enough that the Batman television serial of the 1960's as a reflection of the nonsense. Tim Burton's Batman was also warped in the same fashion, but to a much lesser agree. Then again, Burton is warped too. Nonetheless, some people, still to this day, believe those versions of Batman, The Joker, are the accurate character representatives when they are not. Thankfully, Nolan got it right.

The complete and utter damage done to Metropolis was another thing I did not like about the movie and then in the end it shows them in the Daily Planet liked nothing happened. The whole thing left me shaking my head. I do agree that Nolan did a masterful job with Batman though even though I was not a huge Batman fan growing up.

 

[PJTHEDOORS]

I'm not sure I would agree that the destructive level of the two movies were that similar. New York was under siege in The Avengers but even the Chitauri invasion force did not inflict the same about of overall damage as the Kryptonian terra former did to Metropolis in Man of Steel. I would estimate forty percent of Metropolis was leveled by the end of the movie. Leveled, as in practically flattened rubble. Much of New York was still left standing by the time the invasion portal closed at the end of The Avengers.

Well, in the avengers, all the action wasn't on screen at the same time. So a lot of the destruction and fighting wasn't shown.

Anyways, when your into the 100s of Billions of destruction for both movies (yes alot more for Man of Steel), still not a good thing. Don't understand the Steel hate when it comes to destruction.

 

[cml750]

I am really excited that Marvel has Joss Whedon now. I have always been a big fan of his. He did an excellent job with the Avengers and I can't wait for the next one. I know he almost did a Wonder Woman movie in the past. DC really dropped the ball in not picking him up to do some of their movies. On the same note, I do not know if any of you ever watched Whedon's Firefly, but it was truly an amazing show for the short run it got.

 

[DallasEast]

I guess I am just an old school Superman fan. I haven't read a comic since the early 80's. That being said, my biggest problem with the movie was not the character, although different from the Superman I grew up with, but the mind numbing pace of the movie and overdone action/fight scenes. I thought this was a young teenagers movie. To me they dropped too little story around way too much action. There were multiple people who booed at the end in the theater I watched it in. Heck, even my 20 year old son who went to see it with me thought it was way overdone and disliked it. I knew it would not be a Donner film but thought it would be better than it was. I am glad you liked it but it was not for me.

Different strokes for sure. My collection of Action Comics, Superman, etc. goes back the 1970's. As good a era film as the first Superman movie was, it was more an adaptation of the Saturday morning cartoon Superfriends than anything else. As corny as Lex Luther was in the comics at the time, Gene Hackman's portrayal was much more corny than necessary.

Like I said earlier, the Superman titles have evolved over the years. They began to more accurately reflect, "What would happen..." storylines. Even though much less powerful than the Christopher Reeves version, the Kryptonians were much more powerful than any character seen in The Avengers with the exception of Hulk. They were devoid of human morality. Their goal was to rebuild their society on Earth. Their methods would certainly not be as tame as what was read in the (early) 70's.

The various audiences I witnessed (I saw the film three times in theaters) did not cheer for the movie, but was mostly well-received. The only criticism I overheard was about the killing of Zod, but I can only shake my head over the naivety of those making the comments. Zod was going to kill every man, woman and child on Earth. There was no one to stop him but Kal-El. The Phantom Zone device was gone. Kryptonite wasn't introduced in the storyline. He had two options. First, let Zod kill seven billion humans.

Why mention the second one?

 

[Nomad]

The thing I don't like is how Sony is making subpar movies only to retain the rights to specific franchises. Before Marvel had the resources to do it themselves, Sony produced the earlier Spiderman Fantastic Four and X-men movies(which were all decent at the time). But now Sony is churning out junk like the Garfield Amazing Spiderman and recently announced FF relaunch only because if they don't, the rights return to Marvel. If Marvel did Spiderman it would be 100x better like Iron Man Captain America Thor Avengers etc..

 

[DallasEast]

Well, in the avengers, all the action wasn't on screen at the same time. So a lot of the destruction and fighting wasn't shown.

Anyways, when your into the 100s of Billions of destruction for both movies (yes alot more for Man of Steel), still not a good thing. Don't understand the Steel hate when it comes to destruction.

The only conclusion I've ever come up with is that many of the critics do not comprehend how powerful or ruthless the Kryptonians were. They probably do not have a clue.

 

[cml750]

Different strokes for sure. My collection of Action Comics, Superman, etc. goes back the 1970's. As good a era film as the first Superman movie was, it was more an adaptation of the Saturday morning cartoon Superfriends than anything else. As corny as Lex Luther was in the comics at the time, Gene Hackman's portrayal was much more corny than necessary.

Like I said earlier, the Superman titles have evolved over the years. They began to more accurately reflect, "What would happen..." storylines. Even though much less powerful than the Christopher Reeves version, the Kryptonians were much more powerful than any character seen in The Avengers with the exception of Hulk. They were devoid of human morality. Their goal was to rebuild their society on Earth. Their methods would certainly not be as tame as what was read in the (early) 70's.

The various audiences I witnessed (I saw the film three times in theaters) did not cheer for the movie, but was mostly well-received. The only criticism I overheard was about the killing of Zod, but I can only my head over the naivety of those making the comments. Zod was going to kill every man, woman and child on Earth. There was no one to stop him but Kal-El. The Phantom Zone device was gone. Kryptonite wasn't introduced in the storyline. He had two options. First, let Zod kill seven billion humans.

Why mention the second one?

The second one as in my son's opinion? I mentioned because he is still young and thought it was overdone too. Not that it really matters because everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

Did you watch the Smallville series? I really thought that series was well done.

 

[DallasEast]

I am really excited that Marvel has Joss Whedon now. I have always been a big fan of his. He did an excellent job with the Avengers and I can't wait for the next one. I know he almost did a Wonder Woman movie in the past. DC really dropped the ball in not picking him up to do some of their movies. On the same note, I do not know if any of you ever watched Whedon's Firefly, but it was truly an amazing show for the short run it got.

Great post. I was stoked when Whedon was announced to oversee The Avengers. My appreciation of his work goes back beyond Firefly to Buffy: The Vampire Slayer. There are probably few who have seen the cult movie of Buffy. It was quirky as heck, starring Kristy Swanson, Donald Sutherland, Rutger Hauer, and even that Pee Wee Herman idiot. Whedon took that mess of moviemaking and created a legendary television character. He has a tons of talent. Whedon, Nolan and J.J. Abrams are absolute naturals with the genre in my opinion.

 

[cml750]

Great post. I was stoked when was Whedon announced to oversee The Avengers. My appreciation of his work goes back beyond Firefly to Buffy: The Vampire Slayer. There are probably few who have seen the cult movie of Buffy. It was quirky as heck, starring Kristy Swanson, Donald Sutherland, Rutger Hauer, and even that Pee Wee Herman idiot. Whedon took that mess of moviemaking and created a legendary television character. He has a tons of talent. Whedon, Nolan and J.J. Abrams are absolute naturals with the genre in my opinion.

I saw the Buffy movie(ugh!!) as well as every one of Whedon's Buffy and Angel shows. I have seen most of Whedon's work except I missed a few of the Dollhouse episodes. I am a huge fan of his. He is an extremely creative guy.