Discussion:
So why can't DC catch up to Marvel in Hollywood?
(too old to reply)
TMC
2012-01-09 08:33:24 UTC
Permalink
http://realwrestlecrap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=409505&page=1

I hope I am not the only one who has noticed that DC has seriously
fallen short of Marvel in the movie department. Not for the lack of
trying, but outside of the Batman movies DC has yet to have any
success on the levels Marvel has: Catwoman and Jonah Hex both bombed
flat out, Superman Returns, Watchmen, and Green Lantern didn't exactly
do badly but they all fell far short of expectations and got crucified
by critics. They are preparing a fresh round with plans for a Superman
relaunch and a Wonder Woman movie, but it is hard to feel optimistic
with their track record so far. So what gives?

I think part of it is timing: Marvel got a head start on DC in
Hollywood, so they have a monopoly on some of the best talent
available (actors, writers, directors, etc), and also DC waited so
long to get involved that people were already starting to burn out on
super-hero movies by the time they got in the game. But I also think
they have been trying a little too hard in some cases: they are
obviously eager to try to establish the kind of trilogies that Marvel
has created, but if you watch films like X-Men, Spider Man, or Iron
Man, they all could easily have been stand alone films but they were
successful enough to spawn sequels. With movies like Green Lantern, DC
has been obviously trying to set up the stage for more, and they end
up packing too much too fast into any one film.

I also think it might do DC some good to keep getting their feet wet
on the small screen; they had a great launching pad with Smallville. I
could easily envision a Buffy-esque series about Nightwing. And I
recall hearing that HBO was briefly interested in making The Watchmen
into a mini-series, which I think would have suited the story much
better since it could have been told in its disjointed fashion more
easily that way.

Any other theories?
noisyblocks
2012-01-09 15:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMC
Any other theories?
I just think the genre has been fairly well beaten to death--which
affects both. Look at how Green Lantern tanked...and whatever happened
to Capt. America? Do I care?? Well, not really.

I think they did a good job resurrecting Batman the way they did
(almost in line with how James Bond suddenly got darker and grittier)
but already it's feeling thin.

I'm more interested in understanding why they always make the movies/
TV shows based on comics--versus actually generating a new storyline/
character group. If anything, Pixar has shown that you can make great
stories out of thin air, so why not great comicbook heroes too?

But like you say, it's the sequel thing currently driving it, and so
recognizable names (Spiderman etc) is what sells. Hmm.


--
noisyblocks
Madara0806
2012-01-09 16:04:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by noisyblocks
Post by TMC
Any other theories?
I just think the genre has been fairly well beaten to death--which
affects both. Look at how Green Lantern tanked...and whatever happened
to Capt. America? Do I care?? Well, not really.
I think they did a good job resurrecting Batman the way they did
(almost in line with how James Bond suddenly got darker and grittier)
but already it's feeling thin.
I'm more interested in understanding why they always make the movies/
TV shows based on comics--versus actually generating a new storyline/
character group. If anything, Pixar has shown that you can make great
stories out of thin air, so why not great comicbook heroes too?
But like you say, it's the sequel thing currently driving it, and so
recognizable names (Spiderman etc) is what sells. Hmm.
--
noisyblocks
I like some of the DTV animated movies DC has done, e.g. that Justice
League one set in the 1950s (New Frontier, I think). I'd actually
prefer good 2-D animated features done in the comic book style over
bloated live-action ones.
Ken from Chicago
2012-01-09 17:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by noisyblocks
Post by TMC
Any other theories?
I just think the genre has been fairly well beaten to death--which
affects both. Look at how Green Lantern tanked...and whatever happened
to Capt. America? Do I care?? Well, not really.
Cap was the #10 top-grossing box office movie in America for 2011.

http://www.imdb.com/search/title?year=2011,2011&sort=boxoffice_gross_us,desc
Post by noisyblocks
I think they did a good job resurrecting Batman the way they did
(almost in line with how James Bond suddenly got darker and grittier)
but already it's feeling thin.
I'm more interested in understanding why they always make the movies/
TV shows based on comics--versus actually generating a new storyline/
character group. If anything, Pixar has shown that you can make great
stories out of thin air, so why not great comicbook heroes too?
Fear. Heaven forbid you create something new. Then again, there would be
complaints that they are ripping off the old--so might as well use the old
characters.
Post by noisyblocks
But like you say, it's the sequel thing currently driving it, and so
recognizable names (Spiderman etc) is what sells. Hmm.
--
noisyblocks
Yep, it's all about the brands.

-- Ken from Chicago
notbob
2012-01-10 15:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken from Chicago
Cap was the #10 top-grossing box office movie in America for 2011.
Which pretty much indicates the piss-poor state of the industry, these
days. Hell, they're even remaking the original comic books. How
pathetic is that.

nb
--
vi --the root of evil
Duggy
2012-01-09 23:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by noisyblocks
I'm more interested in understanding why they always make the movies/
TV shows based on comics--versus actually generating a new storyline/
character group. If anything, Pixar has shown that you can make great
stories out of thin air, so why not great comicbook heroes too?
No Ordinary Family?
The Specials?
SUPER?
Post by noisyblocks
But like you say, it's the sequel thing currently driving it, and so
recognizable names (Spiderman etc) is what sells. Hmm.
Duh.

===
= DUG.
===
Ken from Chicago
2012-01-10 05:41:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duggy
Post by noisyblocks
I'm more interested in understanding why they always make the movies/
TV shows based on comics--versus actually generating a new storyline/
character group. If anything, Pixar has shown that you can make great
stories out of thin air, so why not great comicbook heroes too?
No Ordinary Family?
Which had horribly flawed writing--especially the ep with the wife's parents
visited. The single worst tv episode I've ever seen with her parents being
the most horribly written characters I've seen in 30+ years of tv watching.
It took hours to watch the episode due to literally pausing the dvr to
mentally recover after something totally annoyingly assinine they said with
starring super couple allowing the parents to say it without responding to
it.
Post by Duggy
The Specials?
Wow, that's more obscure than MYSTERY MEN and got somewhat worse ratings on
Rotten Tomatoes.
Post by Duggy
SUPER?
Yes, the ultra-violent low-budget vigilante movie--again. For ... some ...
reason those aren't so popular. At least not such an unpolished version of
same.

Aside from MYSTERY MEN, some other choices that got better ratings and / or
box offices would have been HANCOCK, HELLBOY, PUSH, and even, going really
old school, HERO AT LARGE.
Post by Duggy
Post by noisyblocks
But like you say, it's the sequel thing currently driving it, and so
recognizable names (Spiderman etc) is what sells. Hmm.
Duh.
===
= DUG.
===
That also reflects a lot of comic book market. For all the people
complaining about the lack of originality or new characters, the lion's
share of the market still goes to not only the Big Two, but much of the same
top-selling characters.

-- Ken from Chicago
Duggy
2012-01-10 06:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by Duggy
Post by noisyblocks
I'm more interested in understanding why they always make the movies/
TV shows based on comics--versus actually generating a new storyline/
character group. If anything, Pixar has shown that you can make great
stories out of thin air, so why not great comicbook heroes too?
No Ordinary Family?
Which had horribly flawed writing--especially the ep with the wife's parents
visited. The single worst tv episode I've ever seen with her parents being
the most horribly written characters I've seen in 30+ years of tv watching.
It took hours to watch the episode due to literally pausing the dvr to
mentally recover after something totally annoyingly assinine they said with
starring super couple allowing the parents to say it without responding to
it.
Post by Duggy
The Specials?
Wow, that's more obscure than MYSTERY MEN and got somewhat worse ratings on
Rotten Tomatoes.
I actually enjoyed it, very Common Grounds-like. No action. They
may have annoyed some.
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by Duggy
SUPER?
Yes, the ultra-violent low-budget vigilante movie--again. For ... some ...
reason those aren't so popular. At least not such an unpolished version of
same.
If you want a higher budget, a comic book title is probably needed to
sell it.
Post by Ken from Chicago
Aside from MYSTERY MEN,
Based on a comic.
Post by Ken from Chicago
some other choices that got better ratings and / or
box offices would have been HANCOCK,
True, but not a team as requested.
Post by Ken from Chicago
HELLBOY,
Based on a comic.
Post by Ken from Chicago
 PUSH,
Don't know it.
Post by Ken from Chicago
and even, going really
old school, HERO AT LARGE.
Possible.

Teams: Skyhigh.
Non-Teams: Jumper.
Post by Ken from Chicago
That also reflects a lot of comic book market. For all the people
complaining about the lack of originality or new characters, the lion's
share of the market still goes to not only the Big Two, but much of the same
top-selling characters.
True. It's the same names in the Top 10/20 unless something special's
happening that month.

===
= DUG.
===
Sol L. Siegel
2012-01-11 04:52:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMC
Any other theories?
Except for Bats and Spidey, the characters aren't all that interesting.
That's basically it.

- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Duggy
2012-01-11 05:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sol L. Siegel
Post by TMC
Any other theories?
Except for Bats and Spidey, the characters aren't all that interesting.
That's basically it.
I wouldn't say Spidey was an interesting character.

===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
2012-01-11 06:31:12 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:07:16 -0800 (PST), Duggy
Post by Duggy
Post by Sol L. Siegel
Post by TMC
Any other theories?
Except for Bats and Spidey, the characters aren't all that interesting.
That's basically it.
I wouldn't say Spidey was an interesting character.
===
= DUG.
===
Of course you wouldn't...you don't like Marvel.
Duggy
2012-01-11 07:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by grinningdemon
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:07:16 -0800 (PST), Duggy
Post by Duggy
Post by Sol L. Siegel
Post by TMC
Any other theories?
Except for Bats and Spidey, the characters aren't all that interesting.
That's basically it.
I wouldn't say Spidey was an interesting character.
Of course you wouldn't...you don't like Marvel.
While it is true that I don't like Marvel I do think Deadpool is an
interesting character.

===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
2012-01-11 08:56:58 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:51:59 -0800 (PST), Duggy
Post by Duggy
Post by grinningdemon
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:07:16 -0800 (PST), Duggy
Post by Duggy
Post by Sol L. Siegel
Post by TMC
Any other theories?
Except for Bats and Spidey, the characters aren't all that interesting.
That's basically it.
I wouldn't say Spidey was an interesting character.
Of course you wouldn't...you don't like Marvel.
While it is true that I don't like Marvel I do think Deadpool is an
interesting character.
===
= DUG.
===
Deadpool is an interesting character? He's a clown with no depth at
all (at least not the current incarnation)...his books are
occasionally good for a few laughs (and usually not even that these
days) but that's all.

Spidey actually was an interesting character...until the retcon turned
him and most of his supporting cast into assholes.
Duggy
2012-01-11 13:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Deadpool is an interesting character?  He's a clown with no depth at
all
And everyone loves a clown.
Spidey actually was an interesting character...until the retcon turned
him and most of his supporting cast into assholes.
I always found him a whiny brat. But people get different things from
characters.

I noticed you dodged your false claim.

===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
2012-01-23 01:06:43 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:20:13 -0800 (PST), Duggy
Post by Duggy
Deadpool is an interesting character?  He's a clown with no depth at
all
And everyone loves a clown.
Spidey actually was an interesting character...until the retcon turned
him and most of his supporting cast into assholes.
I always found him a whiny brat. But people get different things from
characters.
I noticed you dodged your false claim.
===
= DUG.
===
What false claim? That you don't like Marvel? You just admitted it.

Or are we back on the reboot/retcon thing? Because I could make an
argument either way on this one but I didn't feel like starting that
same pointless discussion with you all over again.
Duggy
2012-01-23 01:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by grinningdemon
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:20:13 -0800 (PST), Duggy
Post by Duggy
Deadpool is an interesting character?  He's a clown with no depth at
all
And everyone loves a clown.
Spidey actually was an interesting character...until the retcon turned
him and most of his supporting cast into assholes.
I always found him a whiny brat.  But people get different things from
characters.
I noticed you dodged your false claim.
What false claim?  That you don't like Marvel?  You just admitted it.
That I wouldn't say Spider-man was an interesting character because I
don't like Marvel.

Marvel does have some interesting characters. Spider-man isn't one of
them.

As always you've made false claims about how I think.

Doesn't that ever get old?
Post by grinningdemon
Or are we back on the reboot/retcon thing?
Why are you trying to restart that one?

Aren't you sick of making everything the same argument?

===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
2012-01-23 03:09:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:53:23 -0800 (PST), Duggy
Post by Duggy
Post by grinningdemon
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:20:13 -0800 (PST), Duggy
Post by Duggy
Deadpool is an interesting character?  He's a clown with no depth at
all
And everyone loves a clown.
Spidey actually was an interesting character...until the retcon turned
him and most of his supporting cast into assholes.
I always found him a whiny brat.  But people get different things from
characters.
I noticed you dodged your false claim.
What false claim?  That you don't like Marvel?  You just admitted it.
That I wouldn't say Spider-man was an interesting character because I
don't like Marvel.
Marvel does have some interesting characters. Spider-man isn't one of
them.
As always you've made false claims about how I think.
Doesn't that ever get old?
You have made it very clear on many occasions that you are not a
Marvel fan...it is only natural to assume a connection when you make a
general negative statement about one of the most popular and prominent
Marvel characters.

You said "everyone loves a clown"...I don't...so why are you making
false claims about how I think?

Doesn't that ever get old?
Post by Duggy
Post by grinningdemon
Or are we back on the reboot/retcon thing?
Why are you trying to restart that one?
I honestly wasn't sure what you meant...and, since you generally try
to pick a fight every time "reboot" or "retcon" comes up in our
discussions, it entirely reasonable to think you might be doing so
again...so I asked if you were...asking for clarification isn't the
same as trying to restart the arguement.
Post by Duggy
Aren't you sick of making everything the same argument?
I often wonder the same thing about you.
Duggy
2012-01-23 08:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by grinningdemon
Post by Duggy
As always you've made false claims about how I think.
You have made it very clear on many occasions that you are not a
Marvel fan...it is only natural to assume a connection when you make a
general negative statement about one of the most popular and prominent
Marvel characters.
The 2 don't follow. I hate Firefly, but I love the character of Wash.

You have a very limited view of the world and people.

PS: Please don't turn this into an excuse to start another of your
fights about Firefly.
Post by grinningdemon
You said "everyone loves a clown"...I don't...so why are you making
false claims about how I think?
Maybe you haven't met the clown I'm talking about.
Post by grinningdemon
Post by Duggy
Post by grinningdemon
Or are we back on the reboot/retcon thing?
Why are you trying to restart that one?
I honestly wasn't sure what you meant...
Suuuure.
Post by grinningdemon
and, since you generally try
to pick a fight every time "reboot" or "retcon" comes up in our
discussions,
Did they?
Post by grinningdemon
it entirely reasonable to think you might be doing so
again...so I asked if you were...asking for clarification isn't the
same as trying to restart the arguement.
Suuure.
Post by grinningdemon
Post by Duggy
Aren't you sick of making everything the same argument?
I often wonder the same thing about you.
Suuure.

===
= DUG.
===
Paul David Wright
2012-01-24 00:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duggy
Post by Sol L. Siegel
Post by TMC
Any other theories?
Except for Bats and Spidey, the characters aren't all that
interesting. That's basically it.
I wouldn't say Spidey was an interesting character.
=3D=3D=3D
=3D DUG.
=3D=3D=3D
He used to be.
In the comics, anyway.
--
PDW

Check out my blog:
The first is a preview of my superhero comic book.
http://incognitoheroes.blogspot.com/
http://corneliusaddaptionproject.blogspot.com/


And my books:
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/pdwright42
Loading...