OldBoy

So I have been wondering this for some time...

DC has arguably the most iconic and recognizable characters in their arsenal, yet seem to flail about when it comes to matching the very popular, but perhaps less iconic Marvel cast of characters.

Did the movie going public really know about Wolverine and the X-Men when they first came out in 2000?

Sure, the incarnations of Superman have made money, a lot even, but not nearly as successful or highly praised as most of the Marvel movies to date save for maybe the original Superman '78.

Of course, there is Batman aka The Dark Knight, the exception to the rule imo. With 2 successful franchises with Burton and much much much later Nolan.

But is that it...2 DC characters versus a half dozen and more Marvel heroes?

Can no one but Christopher Nolan make a decent DC movie?

Now, I know DC is stepping it up with Man of Steel 2, having Batman and introducing other DC characters to the movie lexicon for the inevitable Justice League movie, but why in the hell is it taking so long when Marvel has been firmly planted since what X-Men in 2000 and then catapulted with the Raimi Spider-Man series, hell even the reboot made money and I thought quite good.

So why are the minds behind Marvel so much better at making their characters into blockbusters than DC?

taffer

I don't know, but I wish DC would get their act together. I'm a hardcore DC fanboy. Greater than 90% of my comic collection is DC. Yet I will admit that Marvel completely trashes DC when it comes to movies. I prefer the MCU and X-Men franchises over anything DC has ever put on screen.

I think DC's biggest problem is that they rely on Batman too much. Even in the comic publishing, they rely on the Bat too much. DC seriously puts out over a dozen Batman comics every single month. Its just ridiculous. They might as well change their name to BC (the Batman Company).

Solid Snake

Because they had a plan to start off with and if that plan yielded results Marvel could go bolder aka GotG?

Seems like DC is still run by money men. Marvel had nerds running it ala Feige. I don't see WB with that. They didn know wtf to do with Bats till Nolan came in bold and fresh. WB loved what that meant for them and gave him the keys to the city that is WB. The problem with that is they didn't create a vision or expect Marvel to plan what it did. Superman failed WB's long run so MOS was their Nolanish answer to it. Sadly they have Goyer as their nerd.

That's my bullshitting spitball.

Fox has F4 and the X franchises. Franchises that struggle in comparison Marvel. Sony has Spidey. Financially it works for them unfortunately I don't see it lasting to be a good one critically. Spidey sells itself now. That's easy.

Paul_SD

jmo...

Rather than looking at the success of one film/character and determining (as DC publicly did) that all future characters and films would be just like that one in tone and sensibility, they craft each characters film to be separate and distinct entities. Captain America isn't snarky and glib because that aspect worked so well in Iron Man. It's almost the direct opposite- earnest and reverential.
The broad fantasy elements in Thor aren't ignored or written away because they deviate too much from the more 'realistic' or more comfortable techno-fetishism found in Iron Man.
Rather than serving up four different cuts of steak cooked in four slightly different ways, Marvel offers 1 serving of steak, 1 serving of chicken, one serving of fish...etc. And that strategy enhances the appeal of each of them because they are bringing something different to the table every single time.

Or another analogy- Marvel seems like it understands that Empire Strikes Back was an amazing follow up to Star Wars. And they understand why that is (deepening story and character) and they are trying to follow that riskier path.
DC would much rather just remake SW over and over and over...because hey, that's what people loved so much the first time. You don't mess with success, right?

Giantrobo

Mind you, this Kick Ass Marvel Movie thing is fairly new. That said, it would seem DC is too conservative, can't think outside the box and are afraid to think beyond Superman and Batman.

When they have tried to think past them they chose the wrong folks to handle the properties and they got burned (Green Lantern, Jonah Hex, etc). They are gunshy and I believe the people running DC/Warner are are out of touch.

Marvel/Disney have figured it out.

Giantrobo

It reminds me of how KISS would put out "Best Of" albums all the time. gene would claim that they were trying to reach "new" fans. Bullshit...you were lazy money grubbing stars who just kept recycling your old catalog.

DC is the KISS of Comic Films.

Giantrobo

Also, more folks love Marvel so there's that. Lotsa folks have HATE for DC.

Solid Snake

Kevin Feige, man. Marvel would be nothing without him. I would love to see an indepth interview with him. The guy was there from X-Men to now. That's a lot of Marvel.

davidh777

DC's animated films are better than Marvel's, though.

robin2099

Easy. DC is part of a corporation. At the time that Marvel first started making movies, they weren't. Thus Marvel was was free to make the movies the way that they wanted too, whereas DC couldn't. The TV series have shown just how awesome DC projects can be when they don't have to worry about studio interference.

Deftones

that's true, but DC has an in-house animation studio (WB) whereas Marvel has had to farm their stuff out in the past. I'm sure relying on Lionsgate for quite a bit of it caused some power struggles as to the direction each company wanted it to go in. Not anymore, of course, but I can see where they could cause issues.

Dr. DVD

This conversation wouldn't be happening 20 years ago. Hell, comic movies then were pretty much the Batman series, with Superman having been somewhat forgotten. Marvel made some pretty pathetic excuses for movies, one of which I think was done simply so a company could retain its rights to the property.

While some point to X-Men as the kick off point, the first real blockbuster to feature a Marvel character was actually Blade. Not a known character, but it was from a comic book. I think the main problem DC has is , as others have said, they still let suits call the shots on their movies. Kind of understandable as Marvel movies are made by several studios whereas DC is pretty much all Warner Bros. I feel this aspect contributes to them being viewed as mere properties like any other movie as opposed to sources rich with story to tell. Green Lantern looked like it was written by a committee, and while MOS was alright, it seemed to think that big and loud was the answer to everything. The fact that the next installment is going to include more DC characters doesn't indicate to me that they feel the franchise has strength as much as they don't feel Superman is interesting enough on his own to carry a movie.

Supermallet

But a good movie would overcome that, IMO. Marvel is currently making more entertaining superhero movies, period.

Kal-El

Kevin Feige has, and always will be the difference.

hanshotfirst1138

I don't think John Q. Public much cares, he just likes the movie or doesn't. Marvel have also taken some more risky choices artistically- Favreau and Branagh are unlikely choices for superhero stuff, and Joss Whedon's only big screen venture was a box office dud. Outside of Nolan, who's been a critical darling, most of the things DC have attempted have been at very best severely flawed-MOS-and and at worst god-awful-Jonah Hex, Green Lantern.

Giles

the one thing that Marvel utterly fails at - is the sound mixers that mix in Dolby Atmos - Iron Man 3, Wolverine and Thor had lackluster pedestrian sound mixes.

sure, elements of 'Man of Steel' were flawed - but it's Dolby Atmos mix was insane, fun and importantly 'inventive'.

Josh-da-man

I think it a lot of boils down to Warners studio politics and corporate culture.

Warners owns DC Comics, and thus gets to make all movies based on its properties.

Marvel has a guy like Feige shepherding the properties. DC doesn't. Warners seems content to hand properties to directors or producers to do whatever they want to with them. So you end up with people like Jon Peters sitting on Superman and Sandman, and Schumacker making those bizarre Batman movies.

Original Desmond

DC for the most part on the big screen has been superman and batman and there;s just too many versions of them out there

Shannon Nutt

Marvel is good at the movies, DC is good on TV and direct-to-video.

Tarantino

Because DC's other major and minor characters are just sort of...lame.

Ash Ketchum

When are we gonna get the General Tso's Chicken version? Oh yeah, we actually did 20 years ago when Hong Kong was making all those great wire fu movies like KUNG FU CULT MASTER with Jet Li. Those were superhero movies, too! Ahhh...the good ol' days.



And how about the Chicken Teriyaki version?

mattysemo247

The Nerdist podcast, Nov 8th 2013. Check it out, it was pretty good.

Navinabob

I think Marvel character's are better suited for films. For instance, Marvel characters are set in the real world and use real locations, where DC creates fictional cities. Marvel characters typically start out from mundane roots, where DC characters are more likely to be alien or fantasy based. Marvel heroes work typically under the public radar (Spidey hides, Punisher is hunted, mutants feared), where DC heroes are usually seen as celebrities.

Not to mention that DC heroes tend to be higher powered than Marvel ones. Flash is literally infinitely faster than Quicksilver, or even though Superman and Hulk are roughly the same strength, Supes has several additional powers on top of that strength as well as none of Hulks limitations (low intelligence, human form). Even "B Team" members like Captain Marvel and Martian Manhunter would mop the floor with most of Marvel's top guys.

fujishig

This is true in the comic book franchises as well. Even after the New 52 launched, it seems like DC is more focused on the characters and editorial/higher ups calling the shots; you see a lot of creators that left DC in recent years complaining about it.

Marvel has, at least since the advent of Quesada and Marvel Knights, been a lot more focused on creators and creative vision. Want to take a B character and totally reinvent them, go ahead? Heck, want to take the Punisher and turn him into a Frankenstein monster? If it's a good story, why not? They still have their massive editorial overhead and gimmick of the month changes, but you'll see a lot more of the creators getting top billing/long runs on comics.

Part of that may be because most of the DC characters are older and considered a bit more iconic. People bristle at changes made to Superman, or even a costume change, but the X-men, Iron Man, etc. change costumes and characteristics all the time, so it's a bit less jarring.

Mike86

Warner seems less willing to take chances on DC properties that aren't proven like Batman or Superman. Maybe that's because like others have said since DC is owned by one large corporation they just fear to much about having a bunch of failures on their hand and Green Lantern probably didn't help anything in regards to their confidence in other characters receiving films.

The problem now though is they seem to know that they're way behind and want to get to Marvel's level and get in on the hero craze while it's hot (I'm guessing especially after The Avengers since they're now obviously trying to set up a Justice League film eventually). They're trying to set up other characters through Superman with the Superman and Batman film which is set to introduce us to Diana and Barry Allen and instead of giving those characters full focus they're likely just going to be viewed as side characters. I've always thought the Marvel plan they've used since Phase One has worked brilliantly by introducing every character eventually and leading that up to them all being put together rather than the DC approach which seems to be to just try and cram as many characters in one film at a time and hope for the best.