|
|
Post by Randle-El on Dec 18, 2014 12:09:18 GMT -5
So with all the news in recent months about the future release schedules from Marvel Studios and Warner/DC, it seems that the two are taking pretty different approaches to adapting their comics properties to TV and films. Marvel is going with a tightly controlled, interconnected universe where every movie or TV show has the potential to introduce ramifications to the rest of the franchise (exhibit A: Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.), whereas Warner/DC seems to be going with a looser approach, allowing multiple versions of the same character to exist across different adaptations, including multiple different universes (Gotham universe vs. CW universe vs. movie universe).
I can see the pros and cons with both approaches, but I can't help but feeling overall that Warner/DC is stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, trying to do a similar tightly integrated approach makes Warner/DC look like they are simply copying Marvel's proven formula, and thus from a competitive and corporate perspective, making them look creatively weaker or unoriginal. On the other hand, while their current approach differentiates them from Marvel, it looks more haphazard in its design, and possibly creates confusion with multiple versions of the same character running around (TV Flash vs. move Flash, Affleck Batman vs. Nolanverse Batman).
What do you think of the two approaches taken by the two studios?
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Dec 18, 2014 12:54:58 GMT -5
I'm kind of torn between the two. The linked movies are neat, at first, but after a while they start to get bogged down by their own continuity. When I put on a movie, I'd really like it to be self-contained, and not have to remember that a certain thing happened in this other movie in order to get something in the one I'm watching.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,197 
|
Post by Confessor on Dec 18, 2014 12:56:16 GMT -5
So with all the news in recent months about the future release schedules from Marvel Studios and Warner/DC, it seems that the two are taking pretty different approaches to adapting their comics properties to TV and films. Marvel is going with a tightly controlled, interconnected universe where every movie or TV show has the potential to introduce ramifications to the rest of the franchise (exhibit A: Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.), whereas Warner/DC seems to be going with a looser approach, allowing multiple versions of the same character to exist across different adaptations, including multiple different universes (Gotham universe vs. CW universe vs. movie universe). The first thing that strikes me as being cool about this is that isn't this pretty similar to how DC and Marvel's comics were in the early-to-mid '60s? I can see the pros and cons with both approaches, but I can't help but feeling overall that Warner/DC is stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, trying to do a similar tightly integrated approach makes Warner/DC look like they are simply copying Marvel's proven formula, and thus from a competitive and corporate perspective, making them look creatively weaker or unoriginal. Call me a cynic, but I'm sure that the execs and the "bean counters" at Warner Bros. don't give a hoot as to whether the DC properties are perceived by a relatively small amount of people to be copying Marvel, in terms of continuity. The reason they've gone with a looser continuity structure than Marvel Studios is without doubt down to revenue concerns, rather that worries about being seen as copying Marvel. On the other hand, while their current approach differentiates them from Marvel, it looks more haphazard in its design, and possibly creates confusion with multiple versions of the same character running around (TV Flash vs. move Flash, Affleck Batman vs. Nolanverse Batman). Don't the Marvel-based films have that same problem though, with Quicksilver having appeared in 20th Century Fox's X-Men: Days of Future Past and also soon to be seen in Avengers: Age of Ultron, without any acknowledgement that they are the same character? What do you think of the two approaches taken by the two studios? Honestly, I've seen none of the DC shows, so I can't really comment on how they shape up next to either the Fox Marvel movies or the Marvel Studios stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Dec 18, 2014 13:11:48 GMT -5
I'm kind of torn between the two. The linked movies are neat, at first, but after a while they start to get bogged down by their own continuity. When I put on a movie, I'd really like it to be self-contained, and not have to remember that a certain thing happened in this other movie in order to get something in the one I'm watching. I completely agree, and it's proven by my lack of watching really anything recent of Marvel since Avengers. In the beginning with Hulk, Thor, Iron Man movies having that after credit spinet that alluded to the formation of the Avengers was damn cool. But what I hear all the connections are between Marvel's post Avengers movies, just seems like the superhero comics I have become somewhat disinterested in. When I want to watch a movie, I just want to watch THAT movie. Even most trilogy of movies can be watched alone or together without too much continuity; Die Hard, ALIEN, Indiana Jones, Jaws, etc ... each stand on their own, even though they may be somewhat connected. But having to watch movies that I don't care to, to get what is going on in the movie I MIGHT be interested in watching, but am not, because of that fact, is why I haven't watched most of Marvel's output. Not that I've watched much of DC's either mostly because I don't get into TV shows anymore. Mostly just movies. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Dec 18, 2014 14:16:12 GMT -5
I've also noticed the parallels between the movie/TV universes and the Marvel/DC comics of the 60's. I started as a Marvel fan, so I'm always going to go with the shared universe, tight continuity approach. There really isn't much of an excuse not to other than insufficient planning and focused synergy between shows.
I enjoy the Marvel Studios films, but as far as DC is concerned, I have zero interest in shows like Gotham. I love Batman's world and supporting cast, but I don't think that even Batman's backdrop can support a series for very long.
I've long come to the conclusion that the DC Animated Universe created by Bruce Timm (and others) will forever be the pinnacle of superhero adaptations. Animation will always be the superior format for superhero adaptations.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Dec 18, 2014 14:47:28 GMT -5
I'm kind of torn between the two. The linked movies are neat, at first, but after a while they start to get bogged down by their own continuity. When I put on a movie, I'd really like it to be self-contained, and not have to remember that a certain thing happened in this other movie in order to get something in the one I'm watching. I agree and also think there's a risk in trying to plan these movies too far ahead. Some world event or change in audience tastes/expectations can derail something that looks good now. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 15:19:01 GMT -5
I've long come to the conclusion that the DC Animated Universe created by Bruce Timm (and others) will forever be the pinnacle of superhero adaptations. Animation will always be the superior format for superhero adaptations. I totally agree with you on this; while the movie version(s) is so difficult to maintain it's proper identity. I prefer the Animation Version over the Printed Film/Movie Version hands down. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Dec 18, 2014 17:31:03 GMT -5
I've also noticed the parallels between the movie/TV universes and the Marvel/DC comics of the 60's. I started as a Marvel fan, so I'm always going to go with the shared universe, tight continuity approach. There really isn't much of an excuse not to other than insufficient planning and focused synergy between shows. I enjoy the Marvel Studios films, but as far as DC is concerned, I have zero interest in shows like Gotham. I love Batman's world and supporting cast, but I don't think that even Batman's backdrop can support a series for very long. I've long come to the conclusion that the DC Animated Universe created by Bruce Timm (and others) will forever be the pinnacle of superhero adaptations. Animation will always be the superior format for superhero adaptations. I tried the 1st episode of Gotham, grudgingly. Nothing after that. To me, it's the adventures of characters before they became interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Dec 18, 2014 23:39:12 GMT -5
As long as I get to watch cool super heroes, I'm good with both.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Dec 18, 2014 23:47:06 GMT -5
I like both, but, prefer the DC approach.
It's kind of similar to what we're going to be seeing more of, I'm pretty sure, from DC filling the holes of the 12 or 13 titles they just axed :
Alternate versions from other earths.
I'm cool with it.
As far as Marvel's continuity almost getting too tight, I kind of agree with that. It's worked for the comics side in the past, but I don't think average Joe Popcorn is going to be catching all that continuity and it's probably going to leave some baffled and lost.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Dec 19, 2014 1:26:12 GMT -5
The first thing that strikes me as being cool about this is that isn't this pretty similar to how DC and Marvel's comics were in the early-to-mid '60s? I agree. Comic continuity is always going to be a mess, but Marvel seemed to always have a bit more direction when it came to their continuity compared to DC. And I actually don't think Marvel's continuity is so tight that you can't enjoy the movies as standalone stories. The solo hero films work very well in this respect, with the exception of one or two scenes that are setting up the Avengers. It's the Avengers movies that require more background to fully enjoy. But I think that's fine. Those are supposed to be huge spectacles, and I think there should be a certain amount of payoff for people that invested the time to see everything else. I think that's a little different due to Marvel's rights being spread out all over the place, and the gray area that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch occupy in being both mutants and Avengers. What DC is doing is different in that they have full control over all their characters and yet they are still presenting multiple versions across different platforms. The best example is the Flash. Right now they have Grant Gustin doing a great job playing the Flash over at the CW network, but they cast a completely different actor for the same character for the Justice League movies. Granted that these adaptations are occupying different universes, to me it just seems like a dumb thing to do. It just looks uncoordinated, and it doesn't seem like they are maximizing their potential by double-dipping in this manner. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 4:58:07 GMT -5
As far between Marvel and DC Film Franchises
Marvel Film Successes
Spider-Man Series (Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield)
X-Men Series (Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman)
Iron Man Series (Robert Downey Jr)
Captain America Series (Chris Evans)
Mighty Thor (Chris Hemsworth)
Some Selected Individual Successes
Fantastic Four (some consider it's a bomb or not)
DC Comics Film Successes
Batman (Micheal Keaton)
Batman (Christain Bale)
Superman (Christopher Reeve)
Watchmen (Various Actors)
Superman (Henry Cavill) - Jury is still out
DC Comics has too many bombs - Green Lantern and Batman after Keaton are a few comes in mind.
To me, Marvel seems to play it's cards right and I just can't see DC Comics doing good outside of Batman and Superman and that's why I feel that Marvel done a better job doing everything correct. Looking at the list that I provided for you - in my own judgment that Marvel Wins and DC Comic Loses. In the next 10-15 years it's seems that both Companies are in a WAR and I just don't know who is going to win here; but lately I still think that DC COMICS is still the Underdog here and Marvel is still Top Dog due to their successes in the past. Just my Observation here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 9:40:17 GMT -5
I'd rate the (fairly) recent ones, plus a few landmarks thrown in for comparison:
Marvel successes, made by Marvel
Iron Man 3
Avengers
Captain America 1,2
Thor 2
Agents of SHIELD
Guardians of the Galaxy (added as an edit - can't believe I forgot this one!)
Marvel flawed but enjoyable films, made by Marvel
Iron Man 1, 2
Thor 1
Marvel disasters, made by Marvel
None
Marvel successes, made by other companies
X-Men: First Class, Days of Future Past
Blade 1, 2
Marvel deeply flawed films, made by other companies
X-Men 1, 2, 3
The Wolverine
Hulk 1, 2
Blade Trinity
Fantastic Four 1
Spider-Man 1, 2
Marvel disasters, made by other companies
Ghost Rider 1 (haven't seen 2, but apparently it's worse, though hard to see how it could be)
Daredevil
X-Men origins: Wolverine
Fantastic Four 2
Spider-Man 3
DC successes
..... tumbleweed blows through ....
DC flawed but enjoyable
Watchmen
DC disasters
All the Batman films, though for different reasons (mainly stupid plots, terrible acting in the first lot. TDK was nearly a great film, but wrecked by the last hour)
Superman 1, 2, 3 (boring, crap FX, stupid stories, terrible acting - all redolent of the worst of 70s Superman comics), Man of Steel
Green Lantern (so bad it might actually be worse than Superman 3)
Haven't Seen:
Spider-Man reboot series films
DC TV series - Flash, Arrow, Smallville etc
Superman 4, Return
Dark Knight Returns
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Dec 19, 2014 12:23:52 GMT -5
I'd agree that Marvel Studios has yet to make a terrible film -- either by my own opinion, or popular/critical reception. All of the duds that were made using Marvel characters were the licensed films. I'd argue that Marvel Studios has a greater incentive to do their own characters justice (compared to the studios they licensed the characters to), since making bad movies with their own characters harms the brand. Of course, the flaw in that reasoning is that Warner/DC seems to have no problem making bombs with their own characters!
The second Hulk film was actually made by Marvel Studios and is technically part of the MCU -- RDJ/Tony Stark makes an appearance in the post-credits scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 13:41:31 GMT -5
I've enjoyed all the Marvel controlled and X-films I've seen except DoFP and the last Hulk. The first Spider-Man is the only non-Marvel Marvel I've seen and didn't like it. Never enjoyed a DC film, but their cartoons are real solid.
|
|
