Marvel Movies vs. DC Movies – The Differences in Approach

Published 1 year ago by , Updated June 27th, 2013 at 6:14 pm,

DC Marvel Movies Discussion Differences Marvel Movies vs. DC Movies   The Differences in Approach

DC and Marvel are prepared to battle it out in movie theaters during coming years, with Man of Steel paving the way for Justice League against Marvel’s Avengers. It’s not hard to see that each studio has, to this point, taken a very different approach to adapting their comic book heroes, but with Iron Man 3 delivering humor over the more serious comic book source material, we’ve come to wonder: how serious is too serious for superhero movies? And where have the studios planted their flags on the matter?

Rather than simply distinguishing between ‘serious’ and ‘funny’ entries in Marvel and DC’s offerings, we believe the differences go much deeper than tone or believability, and make up two extremely distinct approaches to not only adapting comic book characters, but laying the foundations of a shared movie universe.

Although some claim otherwise, we’re not entirely convinced that writers on each studio’s side approach the issue of adapting comic book heroes by first deciding whether their movie will be depressing, or hilarious. Even so, comic book films to date can be filed into two rough categories, and how ‘funny’ a story or character can be is just the tip of the iceberg.

Read on for our extensive breakdown, or jump to any one section via the links below. You can also VOTE IN OUR POLL found on the last page of the article:

-

The Marvel Approach

The Avengers 2 Scarlet Witch Quicksilver 570x357 Marvel Movies vs. DC Movies   The Differences in Approach

Let’s start with Marvel: a world where fantasy is the norm, and fantastic things happen, albeit with serious implications. Iron Man actually had quite a serious plot to begin with – terrorist kidnapping, the death of a close friend, and a call to defend those who had been victimized. However, by the film’s finale (Tony facing off against his mechanized-suit-wearing friend and partner), it was clear that Jon Favreau had chosen to cast off drama in favor of adventure.

Iron Man 2 picked up right where its predecessor left off, skipping over the serious in favor of maintaining tone. Whether it was a drunken Tony fighting his best friend – set to some thumping club music and played for laughs – or the infection slowly killing Tony being cured by S.H.I.E.L.D. in a heartbeat, the overall message was clear: Tony doesn’t have to deal with issues the way real people do. And that, dear reader, is what’s known as ‘escapism.’

Sure, fans complained at the time that Favreau had once again ignored the landmark “Demon in a Bottle” comic story (following Stark’s descent into alcoholism) for a quicker, shallower take on the idea of chemical dependence and self-destruction. But with hindsight, it’s easy to see that the world of Iron Man 2 wasn’t one designed to accurately portray – or pay respect to – addiction.

Iron Man Demon in a Bottle Marvel Movies vs. DC Movies   The Differences in Approach

Sure, addiction was hinted at in the film, along with Tony’s father’s own dependence on alcohol, glimpsed in a brief home video. Since Tony’s world wasn’t meant to be seen as the real one in any meaningful way, dealing with such a heavy-hitting issue would have broken the escapism, and seemed out of place among the film’s more “comic booky” tone.

In many ways, consistency is more important for success than the specific story or degree of believability decided upon; it doesn’t matter how serious a comic book movie the director chooses to make, so long as they stick to the decision (*cough*Green Lantern*cough*).

That’s why adapting any comic book story into a film, let alone an annualized franchise is so difficult. Any comic fan knows that for the most part, comic books don’t offer an accurate reflection of reality – not superhero books, anyway. There are commonalities, but with parallel universes, magic in surplus, and invading armies bent on exterminating the human race a monthly occurrence, the superhero genre is fiction through and through.

______

NEXT PAGE: Marvel: The Fantastical over The Serious…

« 1 2 3 4»

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: aquaman, batman, captain america 2, green lantern, hawkman, iron man 3, justice league, man of steel, Suicide Squad, superman, the dark knight, the flash, thor 2, wonder woman

499 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. I personally want the “realistic” feeling that Nolan brought to the Batman movies with all of my DC films. I want Suicide Squad, Justice League Dark, Nightwing and Amethyst movies but I like the gritty and dark part that Nolan’s movies could present. Some of the movies I listed contain magic but when we take a look at the Harry Potter series (which was huge) we see a world that (to fans) could exist within are own. The Harry Potter movies weren’t grounded into reality but they were able to capture the feeling of “What would happen if this was real?” and that is what I think DC should do with their movies.

    If DC presented them in a world very much similar to Nolan’s but had secrets that even the viewers didn’t know about then they could show the DC world without ruining Nolan’s universe.

    • This cant happen. Well, I guess DC could give Nolan the middle finger, and take his world and change it all around, but that is exactly what they would be doing, changing it. It wouldnt be the same world. Nolan has said time and time again that his Batman universe contains no other superheroes. That being said, it doesnt mean that DCs “shared universe” (if that is the direction they are going to go), will not be similar to Nolans Bat-World. It just will not be the same. It cant be.

      • Dude, do you NOT listen?

        He isn’t saying to make every Superhero film canon to Nolan’s Batman films. He is saying that he (and myself included) want a REALISTIC and well grounded take on classic heroes. Where they actually have dialogue that wasn’t written by some snotty fan boy, but by a person who understands emotions as well as the weight of responsibility and suffering. I like a Batman who I can see is hurting physically and emotionally. I like a Superman who isn’t as super as we believed (seriously he has ONE weakness-a rock from an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PLANET). I like a villain who people truly are scared about and would get headline attention around the world due to their horrifying actions. But, then there is Marvel. Marvel is so full of mainstream cheese that Kraft should be sponsoring them. Their crowd feels more geared towards a 10 year old version of me…a me who also thought it was cool to eat sand or think Spongebob was actually interesting. (Patrick sold that show).

        But, just think of the new Tomb Raider game. Sure that isn’t DC or Marvel related. But the reboot is the sense of reality and gritty emotion that is desired! They took a series that was somewhat cheesy and childish (porn sized boobs?) and turned it into an epic tragedy! It was a phenomenal game! It took itself seriously instead of trying to be some “Grindhouse” in your face feature as the main selling point. Plus, Lara Croft was so vulnerable and so innocent that it hurt to see her go through all the torture she went through. But when she got the balls you cheered her on and could feel what she felt. She is by far one of the best protagonists to take control over. She was “Batman” level epic.

        I say that DC should take itself seriously. Show that they are about the CLASS and not the SWAG. Your 10 year old phase is a short one. So I say let’s make material for those years where you actually can understand what “responsibility” and “sacrifice” mean. Where you are aware people have more dimensions then just “Good” and “Evil”. Where heroes are also people who sleep and eat and could die from not having a source of water.

        • DC superhereoes are not realistic though. Batman makes sense having some realism in there because he is just a guy in a suit. Superman? No way. Being able to relate to something is different than having it be realistic. I agree with what you said about the writing, but how many writers out there are better than Nolan and his crew (Goyer/Jonah)?

          As far as Tomb Raider goes, this rebooted version of her, I think, has that “porn star” feel still. The actress which it is based off has been topless on TV before, and Im pretty sure they even enhanced her bust after the fact.

          I agree that I enjoy movies that are more emotional, engaging, and make you relate to them, more so than movies that just make you laugh and have big explosions. But to say you want them to be “realistic” is asinine. These are CBMs, they arent realistic in the least. The only reason Nolan was able to do that with Batman was because he is just a guy in a suit, like I said.

          • I disagree. Batman wasn’t just a guy in a suit because he had extremely unrealistic gadgets too. Magic knee brace, water evaporater that can dry out an entire city, the Bat, being able to jump out before a megaton bomb explodes and surviving impossible falls. Yet Nolan made all of these things appear plausible (to some) and that is what I think should be done with the future DC comics.

            Batman had his share of unrealistic moments so it isn’t possible to say Batman was just a guy in a suit. All I am trying to say is that if WB can make things like Harry Potter (which appeared possible due to the secrecy of magic from “muggles”) then they should do something similar to the DC movies and make the impossible plausible. This is what Nolan did with Batman and I think his formula has worked so why not try it again only with different heroes.

            • @ Writer

              Turning water into vapor is absolutely realistic. And while there are parts of TDK trilogy that are NOT realistic, my argument is that Batman is the most realistic superhero. Superman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman are all way less realistic than Batman. The sense of realism you got from TDK movie you could NEVER get from a Superman movie.

              Batman is just a guy in a suit. He may have training, and a lot of money, but he is a guy in a suit. There is nothing “super” about him. Superman will fly. If you saw someone flying around in any part of TDK trilogy, it would look extremely out of place. The closest thing would be Batman gliding around. The technology he uses is not even close to as far fetched as someone having superhuman strength and being able to fly.

              I am not saying that everything that happened in TDK trilogy is “real”. I am saying that that sense of realism cannot be duplicated with other superheroes.

              • You are correct water turning into vapor is realistic. Having a machine increase the process of evaporation on an entire city without increasing the heat and the city not being condensed is a different story. You are also right on the fact that Batman is the Justice League’s most “realistic” hero. Although I disagree with you I understand your point.

                To me a world similar (but not the same) as Dark Knight trilogy could exist within the shared universe. I would even go so far as to say that the Nolan’s universe could exist within the shared universe but I am not saying it will.

                Here are my reasons: The MOS is supposedly a first meeting between alien life and humans. Although this is the first official “meeting” we don’t know that Green Lantern hasn’t got his ring or Martian Manhunter is already on Earth. The Dark Knight is a science fiction/super hero film and that is the same genre as Man of Steel.

                Aliens and technology are like Peanut Butter and Jelly. Combine the Man Of Steel with the Dark Knight Rises and fans would go nuts. Perhaps the Batman is trying to explain these unnatural beings and that is what causes a shift in Gotham’s realism.

                • Cool. I would agree that DC should make a “more realistic” universe than Marvel has, just not one as “realistic” as Nolan did with Batman.

                • you could incorporate the nolan batman into a DCU if you disregard TDKR. after the end of TDK, he only goes into hiding for a year, then, superman reveals himself. the travesty that is TDKR never happens, it could all be a dream or something (perhaps a “flashback” from scarecrow’s drug) voila! problem solved! then he can find robin, more heroes show themselves. thats the only way i could see it work.

          • right… because a man with an adamantium exoskeleton, a god from “asgard” and another one that turns into a green monster are “realistic”

            • It absolutely is not realistic. Did someone say that it was?

            • Wait a sec… he is not a god he is an alien. Aliens are real as some people here on this site have obviously been abducted so that’s proof.

              :D

              • Haha

            • An EXOskeleton, by definition, is outside one’s body.

        • And you think that it’s on only grimdark that can produce a good story and well written characters?

          Have you not been around to watch the Marvel movies?

      • @traps like bane. Give up! It can be and it will be! The world of the Dark Knight Trilogy doesn’t contain superheroes…. Yet! The Nolan and Goyer story for man of steel is a realistically-framed story about man’s FIRST CONTACT with alien life, and I don’t doubt for a second it’s set after the dark knight rises. The cinematic DC universe doesn’t resemble the DCU at all. To be honest I’m massively thankful for that because the NEW52 is AWFUL. It feels like Dan Dididio is purposefully destroying the line so nobody minds when they rebuild again aligned with there movieverse. Batman, Aquaman, Green Lantern and Wonder Woman are still great books.

        I’m not really one to rant but why can’t people see what’s right in front of them…. It is happening.

        If you want arkham city batman play the game. If you want classic batman there are several great DC animated movies you can watch.

        I would put big money on 90-95% of the movie-going populace wanted Bale back. If Nolan produces, he WILL do it.

        Plot? Writers get paid to write believe it or not …. They’ll work something out.

        Argh!

        • And the dark knight trilogy isn’t even remotely realistic… It just takes itself seriously. There’s a difference

          • Hmmm. That does read a bit ranty. I am cranky and tired, apologies :)

            • And no need to apologize, just maybe stay on track a little better.

        • Most of what you said has anything to do with what we are talking about. My preference of what version of Batman I like better isnt the topic. Neither are the comics.

          So, MoS is about mans first contact with alien life. That already is far less “realistic” than anything that happened in TDK trilogy. Whether you doubt the timeline or not is moot. All we do know, is that Christopher Nolan has said his trilogy is stand alone, and has no ties to anything more, and contains no other superheroes. You are merely speculating that he is going to go back on his word.

        • Well, you come across as a real prick, don’t you?

          • I don’t know why the rest of my post wasn’t published. It was: Remember that, Mark??

            • What wasn’t published Justin?

          • Well I guess I deserve that! :) Takes one to know one Dwight!

            • Hahahahaha. You gift wrapped that for me ;)
              When I saw your rant, I knew that I had a splendid opportunity to use your own words against you, which I enjoy doing ;)

              Ha, I am your favorite poster on here? That’s so nice.

              Where’s Jim/Yin???

              (My intended post had a second sentence, which was the part I added to my second post. It was also supposed to have three smiley faces.)

              • That said, I stand by my rant whether it makes sense or not

                • At first I thought Justin was calling me a prick, until I remembered the back and forth yesterday between you two. And I am sure that I can, at times, come of as an a**, so I try not to let people rants get to me. Its all love here, baby.

                  • Hahaha, that’s why I intended to add that Remember that, Mark? part to my original post, to no avail. Don’t get me wrong, I think that you’re a prick, but I didn’t intend to call you one at that time ;) ;)

                    • Thank you for the laugh. Haha.

                    • Haha, no problem at all.

  2. I like both approaches although I take it on a film by film basis. I loved the comedic tone of the Avengers but I thought Iron Man’s 2 plot of battling addiction should have been handled in a more serious manner instead of the comedic tone. I also loved the serious tone of the dark knight films. Note there’s a difference between serious and dark tone. Serious is more grounded and realistic with less humor but it can also be optimistic as well.

    About the initial fury that came about when Nolan was announced to produce Man of Steel might have come about because of the fan’s worries that it would be dark. I was actually more worried at first when Zack Snyder was announced to be directing the film because all of his films tended to be more style than substance (it did work for 300 and Watchmen although not for Legend of the Guardians and Sucker Punch) although my worries faded away when I saw the trailer to Man of Steel.

    • Maybe its just me, but I really enjoyed Sucker Punch.

      • Traps wrote: “Maybe its just me, but I really enjoyed Sucker Punch.”

        I think you were the only one.

        After watching it, I felt it was appropriately titled.

        • I disagree. Sucker Punch was brilliant. I just had a problem with the acting.

          • @sonny: How can something be brilliant if you had a problem with the acting.

            Methinks most of the people who are saying they liked Sucker Punch are just talking about the eye candy… of course I liked the girls fighting parts… but the film as a whole, felt like I got the lobotomy (spoiler!).

            • I’m saying that the mood and tone of the film is not set by the emotional gesture portrayed by the protagonist but rather by the surreal landscape, and very few directors and writers can pull that off. what I think is that it’s more underdramatised than overstylised.

        • SUCKER PUNCH FANS UNITE!!!

          • For what it was, I liked Sucker Punch too.

            Quick, everyone, meet at the treehouse in ‘Traps Like Bane’s backyard so we can plan our resistance!

            • I know that Sucker Punch had its fans but the film was all over the place and too over the top. That’s why I was worried Zack Snyder would also make Superman over the top and would slow down super man in his flight scenes. The trailers have so far proved otherwise.

        • Looks like we’re the only ones against sucker punch. It’s more style over substance for me.

      • I also liked “Sucker Punch”.

      • Sucker Punch was awesome.

      • Ha I enjoyed sucker punch too. It’s an inception I don’t have to try and think about. Very entertaining

      • whats not to like, hot chicks (sorry, very attractive young women) kicking lots of slow motion @$$!

  3. I enjoy and appreciate both!

  4. You missed a choice in your poll, that being I like both and want to see both succeed, what makes both company’s so attractive is their differences.
    The competition that is starting to arise between the two is making an incredible ride for the audiences.

    • Bingo

    • This.

  5. I liked this article. I’m a comic book fan, I love comics if well-written no matter who they come from, be it Marvel, DC, Image, Dark Horse, even CrossGen at one point so I don’t have a ‘favorite’ universe or a dog on this race as it were.

    Both movie universes are being thought up differently and that’s fine. I love Marvel’s take, with big spectacle and high adventure if not an extreme worry to try and make everything more realistic. I don’t care who you are, the scene in The Avengers where the camera pans and focuses on each Avenger as they take down some baddies with a cool move [Iron Man reflecting a chest RT into Cap's shield to fry some aliens and Thor and Hulk taking down a space slug with a shrapnel to the head/lightning combo] had to have given you goosebumps at least. It was a double-page spread come to life in front of your very eyes!

    DC has a different approach with a more serious tone and gritty realism. Now, I know some of you are saying Nolan’s Batman trilogy shouldn’t count as part of DC’s shared universe because of things Nolan has said about his films being stand-alone and so the serious tone and gritty realism go out the window since those are the only films we’ve seen so far and GL was not gritty in any way. MOS will be the first of the shared universe if you follow this line of thought and so we can’t say for sure what DC’s stand will be… Still, I think DC has a good chance of not only incorporating Nolan’s Batman into the shared universe along with MOS but taking the more serious approach and doing it well. Andrew has hit on something with this article that I think has either already crossed the minds of whatever group is running the show over at WB or I hope it will eventually. You can keep the tone serious but not make every hero’s story the same story. Seriousness can run through all of DC’s films, but focus on what makes the character who he is: Batman’s darkness, Superman’s hope, Green Lantern’s fearlessness, Wonder Woman’s courage, Flash’s compassion, etc., will be a winning formula for DC in the long run. I am, of course, ignoring the first outing of GL [that was a god-awful movie], it doesn’t jive with the ‘epic’ feel DC seems to be running with.

    All in all, comic and movie fans are winning.

    • Glad you enjoyed it, and I’ll definitely be thinking over this idea for WB after seeing Man of Steel.

    • “Batman’s darkness, Superman’s hope, Green Lantern’s fearlessness, Wonder Woman’s courage, Flash’s compassion, etc.” I agree fully and there is nothing more that I can add to what you have said which I agree with. In fact knowing how Marvel united the Avengers doesn’t mean DC needs to follow their route, just keep it unique with epicness and believes

    • Batman should be “Fear” instead of “darkness”

  6. My answer is I take it as is. If it’s good it’s good if not , I don’t have to watch it again.

    I mean I have my nit picks some times , but other then that I sit back and enjoy the films that Marvel and D.C make and make my decision after the film is over. I think I only walked out on one movie and that was GL. I never read the comics but as a non Green Lantern fan even I have to admit that was bad.

  7. Rather than totally detailed and long-winded in analysis, I will be (for me) brief: I will say tho I lean towards Marvel generally, I like some of DC as well, more film-by-film, but so far marvel is clobbering DC on my best flick list. I did not like the Batman or Superman flicks so far, but Man Of Steel looks good. I did like Green lantern, despite flaws. I would like to see a Flash movie next, as well as a team-up movie between Dr. Fate (Kent Nelson) and Hourman (Rex Tyler). I also want RR in GL #2. Marvel-wise, I am glad to see Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Hank Pym (as Ant-Man, but want him as Goliath in The Avengers ASAP), and perhaps Wasp starting to show signs of appearing. Have serious reservations about GOTG (sounds too goofy, but will watch and see). Hope Downey stays a long time as Iron Man. Hoping for a “real” Mandarin to appear, as well as Ultron, Kang, Skrulls, Whirlwind, and Diablo. Regarding Fantastic Four reboot, first two flicks were OK, but want Frightful Four (Wizard, Trapster, Medusa, Sandman) as villains. Definitely want Cyclops back for X-men. First couple X-men films were OK, but went downhill after that. Sentinels coming up good idea. Spider-man needs to fight Scorpion and Mysterio next. First 3 Spider-flicks were better than last one, although Lizard was good idea for villain. I would have done Lizard more like comics, tho. Biggest Marvel mistakes so far: neutering mandarin, killing Cyclops, Prof. X, and Jean Grey, not sticking to characters’ comics costumes in most of their movies. Biggest Dc mistakes: the whole Superman and Batman movie franchise’s way of presenting characters (Superman not believable, Batman too dark with too much psychological sicko characters, goofy-looking characters, etc.), and Green Lantern could have done without the cornball humor. I am hoping to eventually see Deadman and Spectre, Flash, Martian Manhunter, The Atom, Hawkman, Dr. Fate and Hourman from DC, Moon Knight, more Daredevil, and Heroes For Hire from Marvel.

    • Definitely with you in hoping to see Goliath at some point. Sequel? Maybe? Please? Are you listening Marvel?

      • And with a roll of the Dyce, I see I am not alone! Thanks for the support on Goliath, Andrew! He was always a favorite of mine in the older comics.

    • Fantastic Four first two flicks were OK?! Did you stumble into the twilight zone or some alternate reality? Because that’s not the movies I saw.

  8. With Iron Man 3 Marvel screwed it up … I’m not so sure anymore, if their strategy is so genius. Rather I tend to believe they were lucky till Avengers.

    Iron Man 3 especially ruined the fun … or the humor of Tony Stark.

    In Avengers we’ve seen a really funny, more sarcastic than ironic AND a cool Tony Stark.
    In Iron Man 3 we’ve seen a childish, imbecile always just ironic (= taking himself not seriously = not self confident) Tony Star … totally uncool!

    Fun doesn’t rule out coolness. Humor doesn’t rule out to take a character seriously!

    So far the more colorful and more funny character of the Marvel movies (like in Thor, Captain America, Avengers and also Iron Man 1) were great (in contrast to the Dark Knight approach … though I love this approach too).

    But if Iron Man 3 is the the way Marvel movie are going now … kids entertainment line (with boy sidekicks for nor reason and jokes that are just funny for pubescent teenagers) … the show effect and WTF path (with twists just for the cheap laughter, but at the expense of the characters) … then I’m out of Marvel superhero movies … and I’m rather with DC!

    • :(

    • you seem to not understand the whole concept of IM3 is that the events of avengers changed tony stark and gave him PTSD, so his personality would change a bit to cope with the trauma of what he lived through in avengers. its a pretty big plot point in the movie. it shows that these characters change as a reselt of their experiances, and arent just one cut outs of a character that never change.

      • Yes, there was talk about PTSD, but it was simply that, “talk”.

        The biggest problem I had with the film (as well as the previous one) is that Tony Stark’s character is never taken seriously. He’s constantly cracking jokes. At everything. That’s a problem for me, because it really diminishes anything we’re suppose to feel for the character.

        So, he has PTSD? Am I supposed to care? The answer: no, you’re not, because it’s a Marvel film, and that’s by design.

        • just because he cracks jokes doesn’t take away from personal trauma or danger. plenty of people use sarcasm as a coping mechanism when faced with lager than life situations (or regualr situations, or stess, or confrontation, etc). look at spiderman, he is known for constantly wisecracking throughout battles, in part to distract enemies, for his own amusement and to take his mind off the seriousness of the fact that he is in danger of dying at any moment. just becasue the hero doesnt cope with stress the way you’d like him to, doesnt mean they arent stressed. not every hero has to be serious as batman when $h*t hits the fan.

      • Oh please the whole anxiety attack crap was so laughable. They try to make it in the least bit serious and failed miserably. Iron Man 3 was atrocious.

        • its box office take and a majority of reviews beg to differ.

          • Critics review films on different standards. When they review Iron Man 3, they’re thinking okay we’re reviewing a KID’s movie. So obviously the standards are low. OBVIOUSLY Iron Man 3 was a TERRIBLE GARBAGE movie. IF anyone thinks otherwise your opinion is inferior. Honestly I had a hard time sitting through 2 hours 20 mins of Tony Stark cracking jokes every 2 minutes and there wasn’t a plot at all. Things were just happening…….that’s all. Box office? All the kids went to see this movie, oh and like this kind of garbage too

            • “IF anyone thinks otherwise your opinion is inferior.” That’s quite funny coming from someone who claims IM3 is nothing more than a kids’ movie and thinks critics OBVIOUSLY lower their standards when reviewing kids’ movies…

        • Thats all your opinion. I thought those parts of IM3 were the best, because it actually did make me feel for the character as opposed to most of the other Marvel movies where I really dont care about them (even though I am more of a Marvel guy).

          • You actually CARED for Iron Man? How? Which part of the film made you actually emotionally involved with this character? The part where he called the child a pussy?

            • That’s why I like spider man you actually care for his character, but he can be funny at times as well. They did a much better job with him than stark in iron man 3.

  9. No cheesy DC movies, those have been done already!

    • Bam! Sock! Pow!

      • Hahahahaha

      • lmfao!

  10. I prefer Marvel over Dc and WB at this current moment simply because there’s a whole host of possibilities. Everyday we’re getting news and infomation, while Dc is waiting out because they’re to afraid to take risks. Iron Mn 2 and TIH didn’t do too well?. They still made The Avenegrs but DC not making a Justice League film if MOS doesn’t do good sounds like they’re afraid.

  11. IMO I think DC is better, but marvel has the uppher hand as of now. Dc only has the batman trilogy, superman returns (no crossover continuity in either film) and man of steel against 12 movies marvel released or is already scheduled to be released, which all share the same universe, that’s ingenious. DC should greenlight justice league dark. along with worlds finest if plausible, after mos to open a wide range of elements (mainly magic, which Wonder Womans powers are based off of) for their universe, leading to a possible justice league movie i hope. I mean this what I want to happen idk if mos will even open the cinematic universe. But think about this it took 6 super powered marvel characters to team up to hit $1 billion. Dc just needed one man dressed as a bat fighting a clown to break $1 billion. DC is and always will be the better draw

    • You do realize that Iron Man 3 is about to hit a billion as well? One character.

    • @ Bruce Wayne

      Bruce, IM3 is about to, or already has crossed the 1billion mark, all on his own.

      I hear what you’re saying, but consider this. WB/DC crossed the 1B mark with a character in Batman that already had a built in movie fan base from previous franchises. Marvel built their movie fan base virtually from scratch/nothing. There were no previous IM, Thor, Cap, or really (decent) Hulk movies, therefore no “built in” fan bases, from which to build from/on. Everything came off of a gamble with a second tier super hero in IM, with ZERO previous movie fan base.

      We all saw what happened when WB/DC tried to make a CBM without a “built in” audience. We got bombs like Green Lantern and Cat Woman. Batman and Superman have thes built in movie audiences hungry for more, that’s why WB/DC keeps hammering theses two heros/franchises, because they’re safe.

      Personally, I love and am a huge fan of all CBM, I just love all super heroes period. But I think what Marvel made from nothing is far more impressive than what WB/DC has done with “built in” audiences.

      I think if WB/DC had Marvel’s brains and guts, they would be tremendous and light years better than they are now.

      • I find one of the bigger reasons why Green Lantern and Cat Woman failed was because both movies were just terrible. But I do agree that Iron Man and the rest performed very well in both box office return and review, especially since they were characters starting from ground zero. Either way, in the end they’re all different comic book characters several people love.

      • “I think if WB/DC had Marvel’s brains and guts, they would be tremendous and light years better than they are now” DC has the brains, unlike Marvel. Marvel’s got the guts, unlike DC. The Dark Knight trilogy alone is much better than any Marvel movie to date. So, no doubt they got brains, they got Chris Nolan ffs. Iron Man 3 did so well because of 4-6 films of Marvel were released before it. So it already had a built in base. The dark Knight making 1 billion is far more impressive because of it being so dark and many parents not allowing their children to see this. All the kids are seeing the Marvel films because they are made for children.

        • @ Kim

          You sound a lot like “Jenny” from a few weeks back with your comments.

          Anyways…….

          Marvel ‘s movies are not made for kids and to think that is just naive and ignorant.

          Remeber Kim, we’re trying to have an adult/intelligent discussion here. If you can’t mange that, don’t reply to comments.

          TDK trilogy was ok, but certain not as great as you claim. Marvel’s movies appeal to everybody which is why they are so much more sucessful than WB/DC’s.

          I totally stand by what I said, Mavel’s brains and guts are what has pushed them so far ahead of WB/DC. Example: if Thor were a DC hero, we would never have seen the big screen, just look at Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter, etc. WB/DC shys away from risky characters, Marvel doesn’t and is rewarded for it.

          WB/DC could be As good as Marvel is they had the guts and brains that Marvel has.

        • @ Kim

          You sound a lot like “Jenny”, a troll from a few weeks back with your comments.

          Anyways…….

          Marvel ‘s movies are not made for kids and to think that is just naive and ignorant.

          Remeber Kim, we’re trying to have an adult/intelligent discussion here. If you can’t mange that, don’t reply to comments.

          TDK trilogy was ok, but certain not as great as you claim. Marvel’s movies appeal to everybody which is why they are so much more sucessful than WB/DC’s. WB/DC is capable of the same thing.

          I totally stand by what I said, Mavel’s brains and guts are what has pushed them so far ahead of WB/DC.

          Example: if Thor were a DC hero, we would never have seen him on the big screen, just look at Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter, etc. WB/DC shys away from risky characters, Marvel doesn’t and is rewarded for it.

          WB/DC could be as good as Marvel is they had the guts and brains that Marvel has.

          I’m pulling for DC, but with the ship of fools that is WB around there neck, it will be tough for them to match Marvel’s sucess.

          • TDK trilogy wasn’t just okay. That trilogy alone surpasses every single Marvel film to date, in every aspect of film. And I’m simply talking about FILM. I don’t care about which superheros, what powers they can do. But talk about plot, character development, cinematography, editing, acting and major themes. I promise you Marvel doesn’t succeed in any of those categories at all.

            Let me summarize Marvel’s films. Corny, childish, cartoony, jokes on jokes, calling a child “pussy”, they obviously don’t want the audience to feel for these characters or get emotionally involved with them. They barely have any story to tell us what they’re doing and why. There’s no sense of HEROISM in any of these films. It’s just bad guys show up, let’s blow s*** up. Once again Marvel has CLEARLY told us who their targetted audience is and that is for children, I’m sorry but it’s completely true. If you’re an adult and still like this childish crap, that’s cool I guess. But you can never say a Marvel film is better than the Dark Knight trilogy.

            • @ Kim

              Seriously, all kidding aside, truly, you cannot be serious. Look Kim, I wanted to take you seriously and have good conversation with you, but when you make comments like this one, I just can’t. It just turns into a one sided conversation. To really think what your saying just indicates a total lack of understanding on your part to which I cannot have a conversation.

              Good luck……..

              • You two are really quite funny.That was very entertaining.Thank you.

            • sure i can, watch, *ahem! The Avengers is better than dark kuh-nig-et trilogy.

              wow, i didnt burst into flames or anything.

              • Meh, tasteless Marvel fanboys. Don’t know what are is, shame.

                • Don’t know what art is*

                  • People have different preferences. This guys dont like the same things you do. Deal with it.

  12. I grew up a DC fan, but when it comes to Superheroes flicks right now, it is Marvel by leaps and bounds. Marvel just has its act together, while DC and Warner just twiddle their thumbs.

    I think what is hurting DC, and yes I’m going to say this, is the realism factor. I mean at then end of the day, The Dark Knight Trilogy was still make believe! It was still a movie! I am so sick of this realism non-sense, it is starting to totally turn me off with DC. For the record, I do own all the movies from The Dark Knight Trilogy, but they are still make believe films.

    DC needs to have connections in the Man of Steel film to The Dark Knight Trilogy and Green Lantern and call it a freaking day. IT’S THAT DARN SIMPLE!!! Quit worrying about realism and connect all three movies to start the Justice League pipeline. I am a nerd, but my fellow nerds are getting on my last nerves with this realism factor. Move on! Glad to get this off my chest.

  13. Great analysis Andrew!

    I honestly just hope both Marvel and DC succeed with their respective strategies.

    So far Marvel’s way of doings things have been fantastic and since Marvel Comics has always been on the “lighter” side (pick up any Avengers comic book and tell me there isn’t at least one hero “cracking jokes” during battle), I think their film adaptions have been spot on in terms of what most fans wanted and expected (aside from some issues with IM3 of course ;)). The movies Marvel Studios make are movies I am proud to be a fan of. I can watch them over and over again and never get tired. They don’t “educate me” – and I don’t need them to. I do, however, need them to be an “escape” and provide a few hours of pure FUN every now and then.

    TDK trilogy was amazing. It made me think and it made me feel and it’s my favorite CBM trilogy of all time. I wouldn’t call those movies “fun”, but they were still extremely entertaining in different kind of way. That saidm even though (to me) DC Comics have always been a bit more serious and dark than its “competition”, they’ve never particularly been very “realistic” – so for that reason I look forward to seeing a new, more fantastical version of Batman (particularly the villains) in future movies. They’d be wise to keep the serious and darker stories/heroes/villains/tone/etc, but there’s no use trying to fool anybody: an alien superhero, an amazonian warrior, a guy with a green ring that can do anything, a dude who runs super fast (sometimes on water) and a guy who dresses like a bat isn’t “realistic”. If they’re standing next to one another, that word would be the last thing someone would think of.
    …So because of that, the route they’re going with Man Of Steel (which will hopefully be a start of DC’s own shared universe) is very interesting. So far it seems to have all the elements I would want from a DCCU (mainly a more serious tone, but not sacrificing the core of the source material in favor for “realism”) and I’m super excited to see how things work out. A darker, serious universe of superheroes would make for some great entertainment, and if MoS is any indication so far, thought provoking ideas.

    As I’ve said many, many times on this site, choosing between fun-&-lighthearted action/adventure, and dark-&-serious action/drama movies isn’t something anybody should have to do. There’s room for both. There’s a market for both. And both benefit from each other’s success.

    So yeah… pick and choose all y’all want. While the Nolanites and the Marvelites b!tc# and moan, I’ll be at the cinema enjoying the best of both worlds.

    • Pretty much this. I’ve always argued for diversity, as there is diversity in life itself (ie. the food we eat, people, animals, etc.).

      To be stuck with only one formula, one studio is too restrictive. We have a choice now, which is great. When you realize you can’t appease everyone, diversity just makes sense.

      So let Marvel continue to be Marvel. Let WB make the “serious” movies that I love. And let Fox continue with their own ideas for FF and Xmen.

      • Yep, sums it up perfectly. There’s no question that Nolan’s Batman isn’t a ‘quintessential Batman.’ Nor was it trying to be. It was Nolan’s take on the character, just like Tim Burton had one, and even Joel Schumacher. In the comics, new takes and spins happen all the time.

        WB and DC found success with it, and more power to them. I’ll still go to both and love them all (hopefully), so no complaints here.

        • +1

  14. I personally think that Marvels is a better way to go…BUT I cannot wait for MOS and I liked the Batman films, ALL OF THEM…. well except for when they started RE-casting every film, but the Michael Keaton films!!

    Honestly I have no real preference because I like them all, but so far I’m more af a Marvel fan I think Mostly because of RDJ and what he has done for the whole CBM scene in general! I know he is just an actor but he is an AWESOME actor and he took a Not so known character and made him a superstar, EVERYONE knows Batman and Superman so I think More ppl get upset over the DC films when they do not follow a certain theme but with Iron Man he was not as well known (by far) but one can say right now that he may be the MOST popular CB SUPERHERO!

    I really hope that DC can pull off a great MOS and the fans of both Marvel and DC can have great movies and SOMEDAY WE (the fans) can have both an Avengers and Justice League, WE CAN ALL BE HAPPY!! and for a guy like me that is not a huge CB reader I HAVE BOTH to love and enjoy!!

    I think that both companies plans should be to please their fans and make great films for all of us to enjoy!!!
    SADLY IT IS ALL ABOUT MONEY! spend as little as possible and make as much as possible NO MATTER THE CONSEQUENCES!! and that is the part that bothers me the most.

  15. You (a generic you, btw) can’t say that DC has unrealistic characters in relation to Marvel. What about Thor, Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy, etc.? Both sides have unrealistic characters, but they are approached differently by filmmakers.

  16. I think there is a third way of approaching superhero movies…the Fox studio’s way which is different from Marvel in that they have built in tie ins to the realistic world in that they deal (specifically X-Men) with themes that are familiar even if the powers exhibited are far-fetched.

    I thought the Dark Knight trilogy was more far fetched than most people will admit in that certain things like: Harvey Dent’s face; the microwave devise; the sonar devise; the Bat; and the devise that could reassemble a shattered bullet were ALL the stuff of science fiction. The difference to me is that the movie took the time to offer an explanation as to how these devises theoretically worked. You could do the same thing with most of the DC characters no matter how fantastic their powers are (although in some cases characters need to be de-powered). I have read brilliant fan fiction that does just that for most of the central characters in the DC universe. It was amazing the way everything was melded together and explained in terms of how it worked in the real world. Some of the explanations were not necessarily that good but the fact that there was an explanation at all I think is all that is needed for audiences to accept superpowers. I like grounded movies and despite the fact that the Extremis plot in Iron Man 3 was absurd…I bought into it because there was a semblance of an explanation into how it worked.

    • Very true: explanation is key. Even if it is vague, but shown to play by the same rules, people can get into it. Especially considering how everyone assumes technology is doing incredible things in secret labs and Area 51 every day.

    • I couldnt even finish reading your comment. The bat is not that far fetched. Being able to piece back together a bullet isnt either. The scope of the sonar maybe a little exaggerated, but the technology is not. Just because this stuff isnt used in everyday life by the average joe does not mean that the technology isnt already out there.

  17. Don’t people watch films for story and deep, serious characters? Instead of the typical garbage cgi movie you get every week or so? Every single Marvel film has been complete garbage except for Iron Man 1 and Thor. Every film after those, complete s***. Too many jokes, stories suck, you can’t care for these characters even if you tried because they have no back stories in these films. Look at the Dark Knight Trilogy, what a masterpiece. This is how superhero films should be done, make them heroic, make them lovable, make them relatable. Good luck Marvel, once Man of Steel releases, you’ll be done for. Bring on the Marvel fanboys and their tasteless taste in film.

    • I love both of styles of Marvel and Dc. Are you sure that Marvels’ films have no backstories? I believe all of the films released prior to avengers are backstories for each of the characters. The jokes are usually funny and the characters I cared for, especially Iron Man. I will say that Iron Man 2 should have been far more serious but other than, I found that you are not supposed to take marvel films seriously. You just check in and have a good time. But like I said, I love both styles of marvel and Dc.

    • They were a masterpiece?
      They had PLENTY of holes that made them comedic and inconsistent. It’s nice to have deep stories with consistent and logical characters, the Batman trilogy doesn’t do that though.

    • So let me get this straight. Green Lantern was great? How about Jonah Hex or Catwoman? HMMM oh yeah Superman Returns? Dc has made bad films. No one is perfect,both companies will make bad films as well as good or great films

      • Where in my paragraph did I acknowledge the existence of Green Lantern, catwoman or jonah? Nolan has done something no one expected, he turned superhero films into something greater. Look how beautiful the Dark Knight trilogy was, just wait till Man of Steel. I believe DC will be flawless ever since Dark Knight and working with Nolan.

      • Also my point is, name me a GOOD Marvel film. Besides Iron Man 1. And Thor, which was mediocre. Avengers was complete garbage, iron man 2 and 3 garbage also, cpt america is the worst, cant even count the hulk right now.

        • Woah, James, there’s no need to be obnoxious. Try to be civil.

          Btw, I thought that Thor and IM I were really good. The rest I thought were good except the last two Iron Man movies.

        • There is no need to be obnoxious, James.

        • Well sorry everyone does not agree on things. I enjoyed the avengers greatly. I thought Iron Man 3 was entertaining and better than Iron Man 2 and Captain America was average,not great but far from horrible.

      • Jonah Hex…..oh man,I forgot about that or had permanently blocked it out of my memory.That was painful.

        • Yeah, but it had a soundtrack by Mastodon.

  18. First, I am calling out the author on the Luke Skywalker comment. He “seemed to take his aunt and uncle’s death pretty well”? False; he most certainly did not. The scene is brief, but one of the heaviest in any Star Wars film. Frankly, I think that people have become much too casually dismissive about the quality of that film.

    As for the debate, there is no reason why a serious, well written film cannot incorporate natural, sophisticated humor, as noted w/ regards to Batman Begins.

    I think that Marvel is doing a great job with their Avengers-centric films. Bright colors for the kids, humor for the adults, and great action for everyone. Not having had previous experience with Extremis or the Mandarin, I thought that IM3 was a great film. Marvel could still make a dark Blade film; just market it separately.

    Superman, more than almost any other character, stands to gain from a serious approach to a live action film. His basic mythology offers fantastic potential for humanistic storytelling and sleek sci-fi, but too many of his portrayals, especially in animation, include all sorts of cripplingly silly fringe elements. DC should go serious.

    • I think he meant that Luke seemed to recover pretty quickly from the deaths of what was left of his family. He indeed regains his cheerfulness in a few minutes’ screen time. Knowing from experience, in real life you don’t recover that easily from the death of a parent, let alone both of them. These things scar you for life.

  19. I enjoy both types of hero films but I also have a 9-year-old daughter that is a fan of watching movies with me. She liked the Marvel series and I found them appropriate for an older child. Even when Stark is shown as a womanizing alcoholic it’s just for a few seconds at a time and (i think) is shown in a lighter mood so as to be accessable to a younger audience. I was able to take her to see Avengers because of our experiences with the tone of the solo films leading up to it. Don’t forget the extra dollars that the studio and theatres make from this. For someone her age, modern Batman would seem depressing and confusing. I’m hoping that she can watch Superman with me since I think a darker tone may work for children if it is balanced by an admirable title character and “bad guys” that don’t say and do sadistic things just for the sake of their shock value, which was a big part of the plan for Batman’s enemies in his films.

    • Did you see Iron Man 3? Enjoy the part when Tony called the child a pussy? Yea….

      • Wow. Good call.

        • They totally missed the opportunity for Tony to tell him to stop being a “muling quim”

    • I agree with most of what you’re saying and am really glad your daughter has the Marvel films to look for entertainment but I’m really happy DC took the route they did. Sometimes there are films that are more for kids than adults and sometimes there’s films more for adults than kids, it’s just how the industry works. I don’t think there will be any darker tone for you children to get worked up about, but Zack Snyder did say there were some pretty violent fights going on through the movie.

      Some things in the Batman films were indeed sadistic, I disagree with them just being there for shock value though. It’s what the villains would do in such a setting and sometimes, it’s what people do in the world we live in right now, kinda why it’s more of a mature film.

      • You don’t think there will be the darker tone for his daughter to worry about?

        Do you have eyes?… Have you not seen what they are doing, or have you wallowed in grimdark angst for so long that you no longer recognise it when you see it?

  20. I think at this moment and time, we can’t really match up the approaches of Marvel and DC since the former has successfully translate a huge catalogue of heroes onto the screen. Currently DC only has Batman and the failure of Green Lantern, so a comparison cannot be made until we see how MOS performs.

    Personally, I’m all for the more serious approach to the storytelling of a superhero. Of course there can be room for humour and entertainment, but as long as the story doesn’t get lost for the sake of entertainment. I need to feel compelled to watch how a superhero comes to be and the challenges, adversaries that they face. As with any movie if you don’t care about what’s going on then the movie has no lasting impact.

    Take the Superman 1978 movie (what many still consider to be the benchmark) The first 30-40 mins are as serious and epic storytellling as we will ever see from a CBM. The light hearted tone came later but you were so invested in the story and those later moments never spoilt the overall tone of the film.

    Certainly the 1st Iron Man had a good balance of serious tone and light hearted entertainment. IM3 disappointed because there was huge potential for a compelling story and a different direction from previously seen in the trilogy. The fact it simply defaulted back to its light hearted formula instead of creating a story did spoil the movie as a whole.

    Batman Begins was almost the near perfect serious cbm movie for me. It had the heart and emotion but also a story that kept you compelled.

    Blade was also completely serious yet proved to be exciting and lively but was more subtle in carrying of the entertainment.

    At the end of the day Marvel is successful because it fully embraces the source material and fully invests in it’s characters and their true nature. The Avengers was the most true and purest example of this, every character appeared as they do in the comics. Yes there was plenty of humour but the overall tone was serious which is what made that movie such a landmark achievement. Remember cbm’s are successful because people likeItthe original stories from the comics. It’s when movies try to deviate from those original stories that they sometimes fail, especially when those deviations are unnecessary and affect the movie as a whole. That was the case definitely with both TDKR and IM3.

    And so the case may be with MOS. Yes this may be a more grounded, different take, but audiences know Clark Kent the reporter, not wandering fisherman. Why is he hitching rides when he can travel anywhere in no time. It’s little changes such as this that affect a cbm’s chances of success and how it is embraced by it’s fans and the public in general.

    • “At the end of the day Marvel is successful because it fully embraces the source material and fully invests in it’s characters and their true nature. The Avengers was the most true and purest example of this, every character appeared as they do in the comics. Yes there was plenty of humour but the overall tone was serious which is what made that movie such a landmark achievement.”

      I’m sorry, which Marvel films are you speaking of? Cuz I’ve seen all of them and none fit the description you stated. Marvel films have no substance what so ever. I can’t believe how dumb people can be nowadays.

      • @James

        I too can’t believe how dumb people can be nowadays. Especially those who choose not to fully read and understand a comment being made and then lacking the intelligence to come up with a credible counter argument of their own, just degenerating to trading insults.

        I think you need to watch all of Marvel’s movies again and then do some background research (use wikipedia if you have to) to see how close their screen translations are to the actual origins from the comic book themselves.

        Thor could’ve so easily been based on the Norse God stereotype, but Marvel were brave enough to introduce Asgard and bring in that link between the cosmic universe and the modern day landscape.

        Captain America could’ve so easily been just a present day adventure, but Marvel were bold enough to show the full origin from the 1940s.

        I love Nolan’s Batman trilogy, but many fans have criticised Batman’s lack of detective skills, the mis-handling of Talia’s storyline and the fact that bane himself didn’t use the steroid venom and was even smaller than Batman in terms of height. Things could’ve been closer to the original source material without the loss of credibility or the ‘ultra realism’ that Nolakns films so wanted to strive for.

        And again back to MOS. Why have him as a wandering fisherman, all bearded and wondering who he is and what he’s supposed to do? Is having him a positive , pro-active character less realistic? Does being a reporter mean less seriousness and more humour? There’s no need to go so far from the source material. We’ve had Clark coming to terms with his identity in10 season of Smallville so we don’t need another ifferent take on it with this Superman movie do we?

        Please get yourself in check and read comments fully and make sure you understand them before responding back. I wish you all the luck in the future.

        • In the comic, Clark went travelling around the world before moving to Metropolis. In the original movie they just had him in a learning-coma for over a decade.

          There’s nothing wrong with him becoming a fisherman (probably in order to pay for his travels), but it’s not known whether journalist Clark Kent will appear in the movie. Unless I missed something.

        • You’re talking about comic book elements adapting to the big screen, I don’t care about that. Why is Superman walking as a fisherman? Cuz we’ve seen the movie already, right? Let me ask you this. Why does Marvel pump out films that give its audiences no true meaning or heroism and life. But instead pump out these corny films that dumb down the audiences. No need to rewatch every terrible Marvel film. The only one that’s atleast GOOD is Iron Man 1-ONE. Once again all these Marvel die hard fans are living in denial.

      • Wrong in so many ways.

    • I agree about the start of the 1978 Superman film. I watched the “extended cut” (?) of it awhile back, which I believe had some additional footage of Krypton at the beginning, and I love those scenes – so elegant and sleekly, poetically sci-fi.

      Pity the original Superman films went downhill so fast. They played things for laughs far too much, in my opinion.

    • “Take the Superman 1978 movie (what many still consider to be the benchmark) The first 30-40 mins are as serious and epic storytellling as we will ever see from a CBM. The light hearted tone came later but you were so invested in the story and those later moments never spoilt the overall tone of the film.”

      Speak for yourself. Even now, when I watch that film I have to put on my nostalgia goggles in order to not let those campy moments ruin the film for me. And even then it doesn’t really work.

    • Also, you’re incorrect about why CBM’s are so successful. It’s not because of the fans of the comics. Comic fans are a very tiny sample of the people who go see these films. The studios want us to go see the movies, but we are not their target audience in the least.

  21. Nice article…. and the entire reason I have no interest in DC’s upcoming efforts.

    Gritty and dark was fine for Batman, although I still didn’t feel that the Batman we saw is the Batman we’ve read about, but it certainly isn’t right for Superman, and it’s OBVIOUS from all of the trailers and leak that that’s exactly what they have done… Plus all the blue grading of the movie just makes it look cold.

    If I had to make a choice for viewing habits of a child then I certainly wouldn’t be allowing a trip to see the DC cinematic universe because it’s not going to be for kids.. regardless of the certification it gets, it’s just too damn ‘dark’.. in fact I’m nor really sure who their movies are for, it’s certainly not being done for comic fans, there’s too much being changed across the board for them to be the main motivation.

    The best thing that could happen is for MoS to get the same reception as SR, which would force DC back to the drawing board to take a less ‘grounded’ approach to their universe.

    So yeah, Marvel all the way, DC can sit in a corner an ruminate over their choices.

    • In terms of violent content in the Dark Knight Trilogy I get what you’re saying, but from the trailers for MOS it seems to be more realistic plausibility and Superman trying to relate rather than dark and gritty and doesn’t have the violent content like Dark Knight did with people being hanged and stuff.

    • Good I hope Man of Steel is dark. We have enough mindless garbage from Marvel already. We need good stories with great characters and Marvel has failed miserably with that. They’re making their films to dumb down the audiences with its dumb jokes and ridiculous plots. Marvel loves to hire 12 year old script writers. And what makes you think it certainly isn’t right for Superman to be dark? It’s not looking too dark, it just looks serious. MArvel is too scared to become serious because they know they cannot tell stories the right way. Marvel doesn’t even take their own films seriously….it’s just made to take more money and leave you guys still being dumb. What DC is doing instead is bringing in all kinds of important elements that’s relatable to its average viewer. DC knows what heroism is, Marvel, unfortunately does not.

      • You obviously have no wish to see the character as written you only have an interest if he was written as a different character from the comics.. which he is being.

        The version of Superman you want to see ISN’T Superman, FULL STOP. There’s only so much intrinsic character you can change before it ceases to be that character and becomes something completely different, and certainly not guaranteed to appeal to people who enjoyed the original.

        On another tack… EVERY pic I’ve seen of Sheenan’s Zod looks like box art from Gears of War.. I simply can’t see it as anything else.. plus he himself looks to be a cg person anyway.

        This version of Superman is an abomination and I sincerely hope it just goes away.

  22. Is everyone forgetting just how bad the DC track record is?
    A few pre-nolan Batman’s were ‘OK’, the rest terrible.
    The same with most Superman films excluding some of Donner’s work.
    GL was awful.
    Even Batman Begins and TDKR were ‘average’. The later with more forced and convoluted plot points than I’ve seen in most recent movies.
    Plus…let’s be real….we watched TDK because of Heath Ledger…..after the Joker is caught…the movie is another 20 minutes of waiting for the credits.

    Marvel at least recognizes it’s comedic and less serious tones. They know its an ‘all ages’ (almost) film series. And it makes it much forgivable.

    Unlike saying you’re ‘serious’ and having tour hero spend hours painting a flammable symbol on a bridge..

    • So you’re telling us all you care about is mindless stupid cgi action with jokes throughout the film? That teaches you nothing about life or heroism or what it means to become a superhero, right?

      “Marvel at least recognizes it’s comedic and less serious tones. They know its an ‘all ages’ (almost) film series. And it makes it much forgivable.”

      So Marvel has no great actors, no great stories, mediocre action, plenty of cgi,explosions and corny jokes. So, they got more class, right?

      Also how dare you say Batman Begins was AVERAGE?! And TDKR?! And saying that only because people watched the Dark Knight cuz of the joker? You truly are one of the dumbest people out here. Out of curiousity, how old are you?

    • It didn’t take him hours, it took him seconds… because he’s Batman.

  23. The way I see it Marvel should keep their way, this whole escapism makes sense when it comes to having all these superheroes in New York. While DC should make Oscar worthy epics with their character, or at least action films that are plausible or share a view point on Society like First Blood, Robocop, or Predator. Dredd is a good example of this. The only character I think would do better the Marvel way would be The Flash, not because of his origin or powers but because of his villains like Captain Boomerang and Mirror Master. It can be done but to me it’ll be harder than Superman.

    • I’ve read some preposterous comments but “oscar worthy” takes the biscuit.

      Ledger was hyped and the posthumous oscar was nothing more than the hype machine in full gear taking advantage of him snuffing himself.

      Had he lived he wouldn’t have gotten it.

      • -1

      • I agree about Ledger, but that’s because The Oscars rarely give awards to SciFi, Comedies, and Comic Book Movies for whatever reason. I’m not saying DC should make movies that win Oscars, I’m saying they should make epics with their biggest characters that may or may not get nominated. Plus Avatar, Toy Story 3, Django, and Inglourious Basterds were all nominated so I wouldn’t call it preposterous just yet.

      • I disagree with your opinion about Ledger. I, and many others, think that he did a phenomenal job as the Joker. I like his unique portrayal of the Joker. Out of curiosity, out of the other people nominated, who do you think deserved to win it instead?

        • Heath Ledger was…different, I’ll put it that way. He did an excellent job with what he was given (that hospital detonator improvisation was just pure brilliance), and that writing just didn’t sit well with me personally. We all have our favorite interpretations and Nolan’s Joker is far from my favorite.

          In regards to the other nominees, they were pretty weak. Had Heath not been nominated, I would’ve said Robert Downey Jr. in “Tropic Thunder”

          • I think that it was important for Ledger to be different due to Nicholson’s iconic portrayal of the Joker.? I really like both portrayals, but for different reasons.

            I think that was good in that role, but I could see how some were offended by his role.

        • Michael Shannon – Revolutionary Road
          Josh Brolin – Milk
          Robert Downey Jr – Tropic Thunder
          Phillip Seymour Hoffman – Doubt

          IMO, the two best performances out of those are Ledger and RDJ. Youre not going to give the Oscar to a comedic role…

          • Yet it’s more difficult to be good at comedy than drama. Go figure.

        • If Ledger didn’t die I would still think he should win. It’s just that to what I notice The Oscars rarely give awards to new people, Denzel Washington didn’t win an award until Training Day, and they rarely, if ever, give awards to comic book movies.

      • You realize Heath Ledger didn’t kill himself, right?

        • Probably not on purpose, yet it is his abuse of benzodiazepines that killed him. So yes, he did kill himself.

  24. Is everyone forgetting just how bad the DC track record is?
    A few pre-nolan Batman’s were ‘OK’, the rest terrible.
    The same with most Superman films excluding some of Donner’s work.
    GL was awful.
    Even Batman Begins and TDKR were ‘average’. The later with more forced and convoluted plot points than I’ve seen in most recent movies.
    Plus…let’s be real….we watched TDK because of Heath Ledger…..after the Joker is caught…the movie is another 20 minutes of waiting for the credits.

    Marvel at least recognizes it’s comedic and less serious tones. They know its an ‘all ages’ (almost) film series. And it makes it much forgivable.

    Unlike saying you’re ‘serious’ and having your hero spend hours painting a flammable symbol on a bridge..

    • I disagree about Batman Begins being only average. To me, its 10/10.

      And for The Dark Knight, the part that I find the most compelling is the very end, after Joker is out of the picture. TDK is not just a Health Ledger vehicle.

  25. Boy this article is pitching a meatball over the plate for DC & Marvel fans to go at it! As a fan of superheroes from both companies since I was very young I’m just happy they both are getting their just due on the silver screen because I recall a time we didn’t have any superhero movies.

    If I have to pick I’ll go with the DC realistic approach. While I like most of the Marvel movies they are just popcorn flicks. I can get that out of any action movie these days & enjoy the movies for what they are. Although DC hasn’t hit home runs with all their movies I still leave the theater feeling like I was fulfilled beyond just seeing a superhero on screen in action.

    It’s a close call but if I were forced to choose one it’d be DC. From the looks of MOS thus far I’m particularly looking forward to the realism of that character. I like the approach they are taking by entertaining what would happen if I being like this showed up. So not only will you have some great drama & thought as his character develops in the movie you’ll also have it ending with him becoming a hero.

  26. While I generally really like Marvel Studios’ approach (not forgetting how much of their success they owe specifically to Robert Downey Jr.), the other studios making Marvel-sourced films have been more hit and miss, if you ask me.

    Sony does not have my faith at this point – I found The Amazing Spider-Man to be profoundly disappointing on a lot of levels. I don’t mind reboots, but that one was way undercooked.

    Fox has done pretty well overall. The first couple of X-Men films were, for me, the first films to successfully adapt comic book characters with a transcendent seriousness. A few bumps in the road since then, and I loved X-Men: First Class, but I do feel like Wolverine has been overexposed at this point.

    With Fantastic Four and Rise of the Silver Surfer, however, Fox unfortunately demonstrated that that Marvel characters do not always benefit from being given the “lighthearted” treatment. I am so glad that FF is being rebooted with a more serious tone.

  27. You guys should have another voting option that should be about if you like both Marvel and D.C. movies.

  28. The directions the two companies is ironic considering they are the complete opposite in the comics: Marvel are known for their realistic and down-to-Earth characters, with real-world problems; while DC has fictional cities for their over-the-top powerful characters who are considered unrelatable by some (usually those who prefer Marvel). As far as the movie universes are concerned, they seem to be swapping strategies.

    I don’t mind the direction they are taking Superman. Actually, he usually gets critisized for being too perfect and I’ve always felt he should have more of an internal struggle with him being an outcaste to both humans and kryptonians, while also struggling with two identities. This is one of the reasons I like New 52 Superman over the pre-Flashpoint version – because he WAS too perfect.

    I prefer DC over Marvel because the characters seem more powerful and less effected by emotions. While some people like the fact Marvel characters don’t always get along, I find it annoying that they argue over the smallest and most petty of things. It makes Marvel characters seems like whiney little spoilt children.

    However, I found that the Nolan Batman movies left a bad taste in my mouth. They aimed to be realistic and grounded in reality, but often-times I was left picking out all the unrealistic parts. Alternately, with the Marvel movies, I can sit back and enjoy the characters for what they are. Being rooted in the real-world means our suspension of disbelief is also rooted their. Embracing fantasy is what Superheroes are all about.

    • Nolan Batman was aimed to be grounded and relatable. Realistic was a word to describe that we “could” believe that fantasy on screen more easily than lets say Avengers because the world is treated as ‘similar’ to ours. Of course there was unrealistic parts- its a comic book film. Most people do not seem to recognize how fantastical that version of Batman really was, that in fact I could have believed Ra’s Al Ghul i still alive if they offered an explanation that makes sense in context. Its all about the details and building it up.

      This was no meant to attack you on your opinions. I personally love both sides for different reasons although i am partial to character story above else. I just wanted to clear a common misconception people seem to have with describing those films realistic.

      • But that’s the problem: We go in expecting to see what Batman would be like in the real world, a world without superpowers. But because it’s a movie with over-the-top action and strange plot devices, it’s not as real as peoples expectations. It’s the uncanny valley of movies.

        I found it harder to suspend disbelief over the Nolan Batmans than I did during any of the Marvel Avengers movies (with the only exception being Captain America).

        • “We go in expecting to see what Batman would be like in the real world, a world without superpowers.”
          Well, then that’s your problem right there. You are asking for a comic book character to be removed from the comics and then changed to fit your liking.
          You know what would happen to Batman in the “real world?” He would get killed, immediately. Let’s be real, how are you going to successfully fight crime while perched on the top of building? Just how much crime are you REALLY going to be able to fight like that? The answer is not much.
          What makes Batman so damn cool in the comics is the fact that he doesn’t have super-powers yet is constantly surrounded and challenged by those who do, and every superhero/villain alike fears Batman equally.

          • That’s not at all close to what I “like” or even WANT from comicbook movies. Thus why I think Nolan’s Batman movies are overrated. Seriously, you got it completely backwards.

            I never asked, nor do I want, for Baman “to be removed from the comics and then changed”. I said that’s what Nolan has done in his movies. He grounded him in reality, in a world without superpowers or comicbook-style action. And that’s why I DON’T like it, and why it DOESN’T work.

            I know Batman would die in reallife. Heck, he should even in the comics. Look at how bad of a job he has done fighting crime. He’s meant to be all about fear: while petty thugs and gangsters might fear him, most of his villains are crazy people who don’t fear anything. In fact, one of them does a WAY better job of instilling fear into people – even if it is toxin.

            Gotham is still overrun by criminals, and anyone he does catch manages to escape pretty quickly. Batman sucks as a crimefighter, and the fact he refuses to put the Joker down for good has gotten plenty of other people killed – including one of his own partners, while another has been paralysed.

            The coolest thing (as even you admitted) about Bats is the fact he hangs around superpowered characters. So in other words, he’s only cool because he gets to hang out with the big boys. The ones who are actually competent in taking down villains.

            Even though I’m not a big Batman fan, I still enjoyed the Tim Burton Batman movies. There were dark but not too serious. They had just the right amound of comicbook action and humour. Nolan’s movies try too hard to be grounded in reality and it suffers for it.

            • I misread your comment. I see what your saying now.

              • Sorry if I seemed to Hulk out for a bit there. :P

  29. It’s not serious vs funny. It’s serious vs “fun.” Fun doesn’t have to have a negative connotation either. As an example of realistic motivations and natural character interaction, only the first Iron Man movie even comes close. Man of Steel may do better, but Nolan’s movies are philosophical debates where people represent ideas instead of people. They include quite a bit of the ridiculous, have very little intimate human interaction, and are completely lacking in self awareness. That is not a dig. They are impressive movies. However, IMHO, a superhero movie style that presents all of the responsibility of Superheroics but none of the elation and joy associated with possessing the abilities, is an unsatisfying vision.

    • You try to sound so smart but everything you said is completely false. It’s comparing an EPIC to silly comedy superhero movies. Little intimate human interaction in the dark knight trilogy, you sure you watching the same thing buddy?

    • So have you not seen the shot of Superman smiling and laughing like a child during his first flight in Man of Steel? Talk about elation!

Be Social, Follow Us!!