Editorial: Should DC Bother To Play Catch Up To Marvel?

Editorial: Should DC Bother To Play Catch Up To Marvel?

Marvel's cinematic Universe is now into its second phase, with many more movies planned and it's fair to say it's flourishing nicely. But is DC Comics' cinematic universe dead before it even starts? Read on for my thoughts.

Editorial Opinion
By GammerDad - Nov 09, 2013 09:11 AM EST
Filed Under: Other

Like many diehard comic fan-boys I have watched my beloved Marvel find their way into mainstream media over the course of the last five years. In 2008 Marvel kicked off this grand idea of a Cinematic Universe, with the release of the Iron Man movie. Unlike other production studios attempts previously seen, Marvel ensured the movie’s cast actually reflected the characters in the comic books. Simply put, they attempted to stay as close as they could to the source material as possible. Staying close to the source material Marvel Studios actually shift their thinking in how a “superhero movie” was crafted.

The heroes of the Marvel comic book universe are close knit and many of their greatest stories are shared among several of the top tier characters. The same characters that make for excellent movies among the mainstream audience. This is a problem for many studios that have attempted to produce Marvel movies in the past. They are more accustom to producing stand-alone movies, if these movies are successful then we see a squeal. Marvel stories are large stories of relatively unknown characters outside of a few Saturday morning cartoon shows. It takes time to build up these massive stories. For all the parts to come together and work correctly it needs a grand approach with deep pockets.

Marvel, or someone pulling the strings understood that there would be minor paydays from each film as they opened. Each film playing out to a much larger story. Providing the mainstream audience an understanding of the characters is not an easy task, but by using the “cinematic universe” approach the viewer gets two things. One, a back-story that is usually serviceable to the character, the fan of the character and getting the mainstream audience onboard. The second, and most importantly to the studio setting that hook to get people back into the theaters. Ala’ the comic book buyer, we keep coming back book after book, month after month for that “fix”. The mainstream audience is coming back year after year, and now that isn’t even enough, Thor 2 and Captain America 2 open within almost five months of each other. This is a breakneck pace for such a young production house as Marvel Studios.

This brings us to DC Comics, as much as I love these Icons of the comic book world I find their movies incredibly troubling. Superman Man of Steel was enjoyable on a few levels, but what comes next is the tried and true Hollywood approach. Wait to see if it was a success and then move onto a squeal. The rush to move forward into their own cinematic universe approach is flawed. They are making it up as the go along, because if this is the plan it feels very rushed, almost as trying to catch up with Marvel. My daughter showed me a clip of a Superman MOS cartoon, where Superman breaks the neck of Lex Luthor. It is a tongue and check nod to the fundamental problem with DC, they fail to go all in, stay true to the source material.

When I discus comic books and the movies that come from them, I have to acknowledge that, yes there are changes made to fit the movie world closer to the real world. I can live with these changes because at the core Marvel is not leaving the concept of what made these characters into more than just drawings. Here is where DC/WB can take note, write three or four rules to each character and don’t break them. DC Hero’s do not kill, they find another way, and it is that journey that keeps them relatable and understandable. DC heroes are Icons’, they are require villains and problem that simply will not be solved in a two hour time block. Once DC/WB accepts that they can start to approach their universe in movie chapters.

With the newest rumors from the Batman Vs Superman movie including everything from Nightwing to Oracle is this a sign that DC/WB is trying to play catch up to Marvel? Is jumping to a Batman Vs Superman movie a sign of desperation expanding simply because the other guy is doing it? Rumors are rumors I understand that part of the comic book world. Why rush off into a Batman/Superman movie when you could of added a complete collection of Heroes and follow on movies.

DC/WB has a leg up on Marvel that they fail to use, their collection of characters! The big five, Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Flash and Aquaman are known in some manner by the movie going world. DC/WB could actually work backwards. The large cast of Hero’s facing a major villain early on. Then breaking them down into deeper stories in their own films, it a tease in the other direction. You get the big movie, you show what they can do as a team then move onto stand-alone movies to show why they tick.

A perfect example that no one at WB/DC (notice the change there) has a clue how to put together a Wonder Woman movie. Yet if you show this Amazon warrior who is a Icon in her own right, there with the other top Icons you drive up the “what’s next?” from the audience. Also Wonder Woman allows DC/WB to beat Marvel to the punch with a lead female hero.

WB is stumbling on their need to find a difference from the Marvel cinematic approach. Going in a “Nolan/gritty direction” is not the answer. They are failing to see the brass ring, DC has ICONS, and Marvel has flawed Hero’s. People want to see Icons relate to people and flawed people become heroes. Marvel understands this, DC/WB has yet to grasp this idea and until they do we will see movies that sacrifice what makes that Icon a hero.




GammerDad

THE 4:30 MOVIE Interview: Filmmaker Kevin Smith On How His Passion For The Theater Shaped New Film (Exclusive)
Related:

THE 4:30 MOVIE Interview: Filmmaker Kevin Smith On How His Passion For The Theater Shaped New Film (Exclusive)

THE FRANCHISE: Trailer For Max Series Starring Daniel Brühl Reveals Chaos Inside World Of Superhero Filmmaking
Recommended For You:

THE FRANCHISE: Trailer For Max Series Starring Daniel Brühl Reveals Chaos Inside World Of Superhero Filmmaking

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

DeathstrokeTerminator
DeathstrokeTerminator - 11/9/2013, 10:13 AM
Just because WB/DC don't put out all the details on their movies like Marvel, doesn't mean they don't have an idea or plan. How many people knew they were going to do a Batman/Superman movie? NO ONE!
sikwon
sikwon - 11/9/2013, 10:29 AM
Good article. It seems like they are doing something similar. Having several characters in BvS is a nice way to introduce the world. Them they can expand. personally I liked man of steel and loved BB and tDK. I really want DC characters to translate well and tell good stories.
bazinga85
bazinga85 - 11/9/2013, 10:34 AM
Marvel sticks to the source material? The Mandarin would like a word with you. Anyways, I'm sure WB has their plan of the DCCU that's different than Marvel's and I'm sure it's going to be great.
sikwon
sikwon - 11/9/2013, 10:40 AM
The mandarin.. They took a week, silly villain and made him interesting. The twist was good, it worked. Complain about extremis pepper or to much humor. The twist, that was excellent.
bazinga85
bazinga85 - 11/9/2013, 10:49 AM
The twist was for shock value and another joke set-up, nothing more.
GuardianDevil
GuardianDevil - 11/9/2013, 11:14 AM
Just wanna point out that staying true to the source material is worthless if the movie sucks. An example: Thor is truer to the comics than The Dark Knight, but TDK is among the best CBMs ever and Thor is crap. (want the reasons why I'll tell if you want) you see staying true to the material isn't half as important as making a good movie. Deviations are acceptable, although there is such a thing as taking them too far. Like making a Catwoman film where it's not even Selina.

Source material is worthless if the movie sucks ass (look at Thor, Captain America, etc.) but deviations are fine if the movie is good. (look at Man of Steel, X2, Spider-Man, etc.)
GuardianDevil
GuardianDevil - 11/9/2013, 11:17 AM
@sikwon
Bazinga's point was that Marvel Studios is as guilty as Fox, Sony, WB or anyone else as far as deviation from the comics. Not whether or not the twist was good, I didn't mind it.
ruadh
ruadh - 11/9/2013, 12:29 PM
"The twist was for shock value and another joke set-up, nothing more."

Just because a joke followed the reveal, doesn't mean the twist was to set the joke up. THe twist was for the benefit of the plot, the joke was taking advantage of the shock.

But thank you for stating what you thought. I finally was able to understand why the people who had an issue with the twist/humor had an issue with it.

Also, to respond to the article itself, if you consider the followup to Man of Steel in terms of Iron Man 2...Marvel did a sequel too, and at the time didn't really have a solid, mapped out plan either. So Marvel was as guilty of the "tried and true Hollywood approach" that you feel only DC is pulling.

I don't prefer DC over Marvel at all, but I don't think it's entirely fair to pretend one is really that much better than the other. It all falls under preference, and thus bias.
WorstUserNameEver
WorstUserNameEver - 11/9/2013, 1:15 PM
@ruadh

Now I want nothing more than WB/DC to rival Marvel's Cinematic Universe but as things currently stand (a cohesive cinematic universe that is producing two entertaining, sometimes great comic book movies per year that are making great bank as well as leading somewhere... and the potential for a cohesive TV universe for the more 'street level' heroes) you have to say that at the moment Marvel is the better entertainment company.
bazinga85
bazinga85 - 11/9/2013, 1:33 PM
@ruadh
What your saying about the plot twist makes sense, and ya the twist itself wasn't a joke set-up, but then they made it into a joke. That's the main reason I hate IM3 was because everything in the movie was turned into a joke, so I couldn't take anything in it seriously and just found it silly.
JorEllinator
JorEllinator - 11/9/2013, 2:04 PM
@sikwon
The Mandarin is not weak, they turned an evil mastermind obsessed with the ways of Genghis Kahn to the point of killing himself because he's not at human perfection to Jim Carrey's Riddler with fire breath. Or, if Trevor's the Mandarin, a quirky old British stereotype.
ruadh
ruadh - 11/9/2013, 2:13 PM
@WorstUserNameEver

"you have to say that at the moment Marvel is the better entertainment company."

THat's not what I was arguing against. This part of the editorial:

"This brings us to DC Comics, as much as I love these Icons of the comic book world I find their movies incredibly troubling. Superman Man of Steel was enjoyable on a few levels, but what comes next is the tried and true Hollywood approach. Wait to see if it was a success and then move onto a squeal. The rush to move forward into their own cinematic universe approach is flawed. They are making it up as the go along, because if this is the plan it feels very rushed, almost as trying to catch up with Marvel."

At the time of Iron Man 2, Marvel was also making it up as they went.

Again, I'm not saying one is better than the other, but to say one IS better for the reason quoted above, is flawed.
GammerDad
GammerDad - 11/9/2013, 3:13 PM
@ruadh

I find it hard to believe that they were making it up as they go... Iron Man 2 release date was 2010 May 7th, production started 2009.
Therefore IM2, Thor, Captain America are all considered Phase one. Phase one was developed for the intent of the larger story.

Infinity Gauntlet.... I'll just leave that hint out there for those of you who have yet to see Thor: TDW.

ruadh
ruadh - 11/9/2013, 4:00 PM
"I find it hard to believe that they were making it up as they go... Iron Man 2 release date was 2010 May 7th, production started 2009.
Therefore IM2, Thor, Captain America are all considered Phase one. Phase one was developed for the intent of the larger story."

I don't really see how that proves that they didn't make it up as they were going.

At the end of Iron Man, they dropped the NIck Fury scene in as a little nugget for fans. It's not like they had Avengers literally planned out, just the idea that maybe, if these did well, it could lead to that. Incredible Hulk didn't do as well as Iron Man, but Iron Man did well enough to warrant a sequel. So, to quote the editorial:

"Wait to see if it was a success and then move onto a squeal (sic)."

So, then Iron Man 2 came out. By then, they had committed to the idea of going forward with Thor and Captain America.

I get that Phase 1 is all one big story, in a sense, but when they were producing Iron Man in 2008, they did NOT have a plan that would definitely lead directly to the Avengers film. They kinda winged it, and Feige etc aren't coy about that. That's why little things in Iron Man 2 don't quite line up with Avengers, the end of Incredible Hulk doesn't quite line up with Avengers, etc, and then at the end of Thor, at a point where Whedon had already been brought in to do Avengers, he filmed the end credits scene to kinda set up his movie. And the end credits scene of Thor doesn't QUITE fit in with Avengers, because...they were still figuring it out.

It all works just fine, but again...it's not fair to pretend Marvel WASN'T making it up as they went along.

Now, yeah, we're in Phase 2, and they not only know what they're doing better, but also know for sure they will be producing the films they're setting up right now with these stories. That wasn't the case in 2008, or even 2010.
Lhornbk
Lhornbk - 11/9/2013, 4:40 PM
*sigh*, another Marvel fanboy who feels the need to take shots at WB/DC. *sigh* Oh, and who wants to whine about Superman killing Zod.
ruadh
ruadh - 11/9/2013, 4:48 PM
I know...it's tedious.

I enjoy movies from both, but definitely prefer Marvel over DC. I feel no need to act like Marvel is omnipotent and flawless though.
ruadh
ruadh - 11/9/2013, 5:24 PM
I think someone should do an editorial rationalizing why it's so necessary to constantly try and prove why your nerd things are better than someone else's nerd things. I honestly don't get this need. We all have them, and they're all great/stupid. More power to us all. It's a terrific time to be a Marvel fan, and it's a terrific time to be a DC fan. I guess I'm lucky that I get to enjoy both without needing to sneer at a subpocket of fans.

And no need to take this as me saying no one has the right to their opinion, or the right to express it. I don't care about that. I just don't get why there is so much focus on negative things. Why is so much time spent trying to spit on things that others clearly enjoy, rather than discussing the things you love?
GammerDad
GammerDad - 11/9/2013, 7:20 PM
@ruadh

I think you miss the point, I'm actually a die hard comic book fan who is discussing things I love, two actually Marvel & DC.

Btw after attending both SDCC & NYCC I'm considering doing a editorial of that very issue. I have never seen the lines in the sand so deep between the different subcultures that make up the attendees.

What has brought us "nerds, geeks and Fan-boys" together is also driving us apart?

XelCorp
XelCorp - 11/9/2013, 7:47 PM
How exaclty did they not "Quite Fit" into the avengers? At least the ones you mention? @rudah
ArtisticErotic
ArtisticErotic - 11/9/2013, 8:03 PM
only Marvel movies I like are Ironman 1, Captain America First Avenger The first avenger and The Avengers

To me with the exception of the ones that I mentioned, since those films have a tight narrative, these films are just a bunch of audience bantering action films that are lacking in story and are mostly all plot (to me the first Iron Man film is the best with its handling of its themes of heart and redemption), some of the character stuff are hit and miss (the handling of the villains however are god awful) and most of them rely too much on pointless comedy because they everyone who watches superhero films have ADHD and I hateit when people use the term "they are fun" as crutch for some bad movies like the Iron Man sequels or Thor 1 I have not seen Dark World Yet.
ruadh
ruadh - 11/10/2013, 8:33 AM
@Marvel1997
"How exaclty did they not "Quite Fit" into the avengers? At least the ones you mention? @rudah"

"Ruadh". I know it's not english, but that's how it's spelled. For the record, it's pronounced "rue-uh", the D is silent, and the H tells you how to say the A.

The intent in 2008 was obviously to have Nick Fury assembling the team, but they had no idea what would really happen if an Avengers movie was to be made. They clearly did not have a plan like what ended up happening, but Whedon more or less made it work. Ultimately, the steps taken towards Avengers before the movie was written were retraced back. So the scene with Fury and Stark at the end of Iron Man and Hulk, respectively, become very superfluous.

Look at it this way, Nick Fury shows up, and recruits Tony Stark. Tony shows up at the end of Hulk, and seemingly recruits the Hulk. What seems to be the concept is that, one by one, these heroes will be signed up for this team, and presumably they have this epic adventure together when they all finally meet up.

But then in 2010, they've decided Avengers is probably going to happen, but they've kinda changed their minds about how. So in Iron Man 2, Nick Fury says Iron Man is no longer recruited. Later we get Thor and Captain America, which fit more with what ends up happening because they're getting much closer to the concept they'll end up with. We also get the short film, The Consultant, which retcons Tony's appearance in Incredible Hulk because they realized it no longer really works with where they're going.

The ending of Thor has Loki seeming to possess Selvig, but in the beginning of Avengers Loki arrives and has to take control of him again. Whedon was pretty open about how much changed from the time he completed the final draft of Avengers and when the movie was released. They were coming up with things on set, and in editing, and during reshoots, so even at that point, their plan was morphing and evolving. And I'm not saying that this is at all bad, because it obviously works fine. Even Lord of the Rings was being rewritten at all those stages, and that turned out very well (for most).

So, if you watch all the movies together, and really pay close attention to the linking scenes, it doesn't quite fit....but it works fine.
ruadh
ruadh - 11/10/2013, 9:07 AM
Also, I just remembered the Infinity Gauntlet appearing in Thor. This is another one that I suspect will not tie up so well. And this is the most forgivable one since most people don't even catch the Gauntlet in Odin's treasure room anyway. But if the gems are elsewhere, and apparently one was on Earth and another was with Thanos, how come the Gauntlet was loaded up? Was it costume jewelry? Probably just...they thought it would be neat, like Nick Fury in Iron Man, to just give this little easter egg for the fans. But in the end, it won't really tie that well with the future movies.
LEEE777
LEEE777 - 11/10/2013, 9:36 AM
IRON MAN 3 sucked pretty bad, glad they didn't make THOR DARK WORLD too Disney, that was pretty Awesome! ; D

As for catch up, its MARVEL catching up to DC now, well they have yeah but there's lots of room for both and more :p

Pity Marvel can't catch up with their Live Tv series, tho SHIELDS a good start and hopefully be as good as ARROW by the next season!
beane2099
beane2099 - 11/10/2013, 8:10 PM
I'm a major DC fan but I have to acknowledge the flaws in WB's management of DC's properties. If you read any of Kevin Fiege's interviews on this subject he'll be the first one to say this process is fluid but at the same time there IS a plan. All the stuff that's happening now is stuff they were talking about six years ago. Iron Man came out five years ago. So obviously they had things sketched out. So to say "they made it up was they went along" isn't entirely accurate. It's more accurate to say they had a plan and made changes to that plan as they went along. But at the end of the day this whole thing was thought very meticulously.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said of WB/DC. Otherwise they wouldn't just release Jonah Hex and Green Lantern so haphazardly like they did. Part of the reason WB is "behind" is they didn't want to contradict Nolan's franchise. And frankly I'm glad they didn't. The Dark Knight trilogy is a phenomenon unto itself (Though I'd argue at the end TDKR I could totally see Superheroes showing up in that world). The other reason is there was a lot of discord behind the scenes at WB. For something like the MCU to work you need someone with singular vision like Bruce Timm, Alan Burett or Kevin Fiege. That just wasn't there till recently.

Lastly I don't think WB/DC has to follow Marvel's method. If they want to roll out a bunch of television shows while some of the big characters get movies, let 'em. If they want to have two different continuities rolling simultaneously, let 'em. Multiple universes is kind of DC's thing anyways. The TV shows could be "Earth One" and the Movies "Earth Two" or whatever. I would rather have a DCCU that stays true to the nature of DC than an MCU clone any day. For now I'll enjoy Marvel's offerings and wait patiently for whatever WB/DC has up their sleeves. And if that DOES turn out to be nothing, so be it. I'll always have the DCAU which in my humble opinion is still one of the best shared universes ever. But that's just my thoughts on this. It ain't gospel,just opinion.
ruadh
ruadh - 11/10/2013, 9:08 PM
"they made it up was they went along"

"they had a plan and made changes to that plan as they went along."

I guess I don't really see a big difference. I have a major writing background though, so it's probably something to do with my own personal approach. Having something meticulously mapped out, and having a vague plan that evolves and changes as you go just aren't the same thing to me. And I'm not saying either is wrong, or bad, or leads to a lack in quality.
MightyZeus
MightyZeus - 11/11/2013, 3:45 AM
Most of these Marvel films are being rushed but at the same time with each screen writer and director they have there own tone with each of these films associated with in the MCU. The only Marvel films i love to this day is Ironman, Captain America, The Incredible Hulk, The Avengers and Thor The Dark World.

Marvel just needs better screen writer's and to have most of the other films that where a miss in my opinion to have the focus on story and characters rather than too much comedy.

I'm just stating my own opinion but i'm curious to see what the DCCU does.
View Recorder