Compare and Contrast DC and Marvel Films

[humanist]

I wonder, do these count?

The Fountain - The graphic novel was published by DC under its Vertigo imprint. Written by the Director/Writer of The Fountain, Darren Aronofsky.

A History Of Violence - Graphic novel is published by DC under its Vertigo imprint.

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - The first three trades are published by DC under its Wildstorm imprint.

Road to Perdition - The graphic novel was published by DC under the main line.

The Spirit - It had a comic at DC until it was canceled at issue #32 in August 09.

 

[Webhead2006]

i would technically count them too but thats just my opinion.

 

[Alex Logan]

I wonder, do these count?

The Fountain - The graphic novel was published by DC under its Vertigo imprint. Written by the Director/Writer of The Fountain, Darren Aronofsky.

A History Of Violence - Graphic novel is published by DC under its Vertigo imprint.

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - The first three trades are published by DC under its Wildstorm imprint.

Road to Perdition - The graphic novel was published by DC under the main line.

The Spirit - It had a comic at DC until it was canceled at issue #32 in August 09.

A NEW user who joined last night at 10pm, just HAPPENS to know all that and uses THIS thread to make his very first post. Sure...

 

[humanist]

A NEW user who joined last night at 10pm, just HAPPENS to know all that and uses THIS thread to make his very first post. Sure...

Although I used this thread to make my first post, does the newness of membership invalidate the information that I presented? Or perhaps you would like me to provide links to DC's website to confirm this information?

 

[The Overlord]

It's not cherry picking when I also choose to ignore the older Marvel films as well.

What older Marvel films, those films that never got theatre relase, there were almost no Marvel movies till 2000. So it is kinda cherry picking to ignore all the DC movies that came before 2000, because there were far more DC movies than marvel ones back then. Considering the 94 FF movie was never even released, I doubt you can count that one.

Catwoman was made WITHOUT the involvement of DC Comics. You may notice that the DC logo is not in the opening. The character in that film was NOT a DC Comics character. Just because the WB choose to use the name "Catwoman" doesn't mean they made a film about the comic book character known as Catwoman. The WB could make another film called "Batman" and cast Jaime Foxx as the lead, but that does not mean it would be about Bruce Wayne.

Its still based on a DC property, so ultimately it counts.

 

[Alex Logan]

Although I used this thread to make my first post, does the newness of membership invalidate the information that I presented? Or perhaps you would like me to provide links to DC's website to confirm this information?

I'm not questioning the information, I'm questioning you. Read the guidelines please.

What older Marvel films, those films that never got theatre relase, there were almost no Marvel movies till 2000. So it is kinda cherry picking to ignore all the DC movies that came before 2000, because there were far more DC movies than marvel ones back then. Considering the 94 FF movie was never even released, I doubt you can count that one.

1944 - Captian America released by Republic Pictures
1986 - Howard the Duck released by Universal Pictures
1989 - The Punisher released by New World Pictures
1990 - Captian America released by 21st Century Film

Those are the Old Marvel films. Please read the guidelines.

Its still based on a DC property, so ultimately it counts.

No, I'm sorry but it does not. Again, please read the guidelines.

 

[Docker2.0]

I think this thread was made to diss Marvel on the sly. By naming all of the Marvel movies and naming only the recent DC movies, it brings up the old "quality over quantity" bs argument. Yep! A way to bash Marvel on the sly the way I see it.

 

[Alex Logan]

I think this thread was made to diss Marvel on the sly. By naming all of the Marvel movies and naming only the recent DC movies, it brings up the old "quality over quantity" bs argument. Yep! A way to bash Marvel on the sly the way I see it.

Okay, "Marvel Guy."

Maybe you should READ the firt post and LOOK at the list again.

 

[Oddzball]

One of the reasons DC films aren't being made so quickly is Warners has it's head up it's collective ASSES.

The first Superman movie IS a classic picture. in every sense of the word. It may not be better than Citizen Kane or North by Northwest or Casablanca, but it's in that league. Burton's first Batman movie was an epic. In 1989, you WORE a Batman product, shirt or baseball hat or drank from a Bat sports bottle. It was the picture of that year, hands down.

And that is the core of DC's problem. People at Warner, have this silly idea that each and every superhero movie they allow to be made must be an epic.

They aren't. But you have committees made up of studio executives making decisions on creative matters these people are not qualified to make! Scripts green lighted, bought and paid for and then rejected so as to get a bigger name associated with the film.

Despite this, once film production proceeds, the studio has kept it's hands fairly off and in the hands of it's director. This does allow a bit more quality and thought to get through.

Of course if you get a director who wants to remake the first film as close to he possibly can except to throw in this crud about the hero being a creepy stalker type, you end up screwing your picture.

Marvel has always had the attitude that you get product out the door. Iron Man was not particularly ground breaking. It wasn't an epic, but it was a Blockbuster. Same with the Spiderman franchise. Marvel understands that you win more baseball games with singles and doubles driving in runs than you do with home runs.

They are not shooting for Epic, just entertaining.

What bothers me is that Wes Craven GAVE DC that formula when he directed Swamp Thing back in the eighties. DC got a few sequels and a cable TV series out of that movie. Craven got this costume for his next villain out of it, and did much better in the long haul.

 

[Alex Logan]

One of the reasons DC films aren't being made so quickly is Warners has it's head up it's collective ASSES.

The first Superman movie IS a classic picture. in every sense of the word. It may not be better than Citizen Kane or North by Northwest or Casablanca, but it's in that league. Burton's first Batman movie was an epic. In 1989, you WORE a Batman product, shirt or baseball hat or drank from a Bat sports bottle. It was the picture of that year, hands down.

And that is the core of DC's problem. People at Warner, have this silly idea that each and every superhero movie they allow to be made must be an epic.

They aren't. But you have committees made up of studio executives making decisions on creative matters these people are not qualified to make! Scripts green lighted, bought and paid for and then rejected so as to get a bigger name associated with the film.

Despite this, once film production proceeds, the studio has kept it's hands fairly off and in the hands of it's director. This does allow a bit more quality and thought to get through.

Of course if you get a director who wants to remake the first film as close to he possibly can except to throw in this crud about the hero being a creepy stalker type, you end up screwing your picture.

Marvel has always had the attitude that you get product out the door. Iron Man was not particularly ground breaking. It wasn't an epic, but it was a Blockbuster. Same with the Spiderman franchise. Marvel understands that you win more baseball games with singles and doubles driving in runs than you do with home runs.

They are not shooting for Epic, just entertaining.

What bothers me is that Wes Craven GAVE DC that formula when he directed Swamp Thing back in the eighties. DC got a few sequels and a cable TV series out of that movie. Craven got this costume for his next villain out of it, and did much better in the long haul.

You're probably right about Warner Bros. Unfortunately, with Marvel "just wanting to get product out the door" we get some subpar films. What we need is something in the middle.

 

[Oddzball]

Although I used this thread to make my first post, does the newness of membership invalidate the information that I presented? Or perhaps you would like me to provide links to DC's website to confirm this information?

Technically, no. However this is a large membership board. It's unfortunately a fact that some folks 'sock puppet', that is create alternate accounts to post supposedly neutral comments that support their main account's opinion.

That said, I think the OP here was being a tad gauche to imply sock puppetry on your part.

 

[Docker2.0]

Okay, "Marvel Guy."

Maybe you should READ the firt post and LOOK at the list again.

I read it, read it twice and came to the same conclusion.

PS-follow my post around the hype. You will see I am a DC and Marvel fan.

 

[Alex Logan]

I read it, read it twice and came to the same conclusion.

PS-follow my post around the hype. You will see I am a DC and Marvel fan.

Alright... Maybe you can figure this out better than I can.

If I add the old DC films am I suppost to add the old Marvel films as well? Or am I suppost to ignore the Marvel side? Which would YOU like?

The reason I didn't add the old films on EITHER SIDE is because they are different franchises and by adding DC's older films the scale would be tipped so far in thier favor then you would still think I was bashing Marvel.

 

[Kevin Smith]

You're probably right about Warner Bros. Unfortunately, with Marvel "just wanting to get product out the door" we get some sub par films. What we need is something in the middle.

I guess I agree. Personally, I would rather wait 20 years for a good Green Lantern film than wait 2 for a piece of **** "here it is, guys!" poorly made GL flick. But that's just me. I prefer quality over quantity. Iron Man is Marvel's best film to date, IMO. Then Spider-Man 1 and 2 and the Incredible Hulk. I liked the first Fantastic Four (they effed doom up pretty bad but it was still enjoyable), the second film was crap, only thing worth remembering about it is the Silver Surfer (Doug Jones is awesome), and the improved Thing suit.

 

[Alex Logan]

I guess I agree. Personally, I would rather wait 20 years for a good Green Lantern film than wait 2 for a piece of **** "here it is, guys!" poorly made GL flick. But that's just me. I prefer quality over quantity. Iron Man is Marvel's best film to date, IMO. Then Spider-Man 1 and 2 and the Incredible Hulk. I liked the first Fantastic Four (they effed doom up pretty bad but it was still enjoyable), the second film was crap, only thing worth remembering about it is the Silver Surfer (Doug Jones is awesome), and the improved Thing suit.

OMG! Where have YOU been? Finally, someone who gets the point of this thread!

 

[Docker2.0]

OMG! Where have YOU been? Finally, someone who gets the point of this thread!

You're probably right about Warner Bros. Unfortunately, with Marvel "just wanting to get product out the door" we get some subpar films. What we need is something in the middle.

This post is what summarizes the point of this thread. Like I stated, it's not til someone bashes Marvel's cranking out movies that someone "gets" the thread. Just saying. I mean, you can do what you want but I have seen threads like this countless times: people find a way to subtly bash either Marvel or DC and when someone's post isn't what that person wants to hear, it's cause you are a Marvel or DC guy. People are not allowed to like both, you have to choose one or the other. Just saying. And if you'd like, you can include all of Marvel's movies, including Howard the Duck to Xmen Origins if you want to be fair. You only including DC movies from the last 7 years is just coming off bias. Truth is, that quality over quantity argument is a freakin excuse. If it isn't Bats or Supes, WB won't touch it. GL seems to be part of the "new DCE" but we will wait and see.

 

[The Batman]

Okay, "Marvel Guy."

Maybe you should READ the firt post and LOOK at the list again.

Dont worry, Docker likes accusing people of DC bias in these types of threads.....

 

[Docker2.0]

Dont worry, Docker likes accusing people of DC bias in these types of threads.....

Find a post where I do that.

Well, even if you do, I don't care. I'm right. I see it all the time. So eat one up.

 

[The Batman]

^ As much as you do have a penchant for this sort of thing...and you DO....I'm reading this thread and you're right. Alex, you quote a guy who's basically saying that the way Dc does things is better than marvel, and says that thats the point of the thread, which indicates bias.

But then again, you didnt say you werent biased, and i find it a relief that the dc film forum dosent have a thread whining about how WB is satan incarnate because they wont make a martian manhunter movie...

 

[Docker2.0]

^ As much as you do have a penchant for this sort of thing...and you DO....I'm reading this thread and you're right. Alex, you quote a guy who's basically saying that the way Dc does things is better than marvel, and says that thats the point of the thread, which indicates bias.

But then again, you didnt say you werent biased, and i find it a relief that the dc film forum dosent have a thread whining about how WB is satan incarnate because they wont make a martian manhunter movie...

Your welcome!

 

[The Overlord]

1944 - Captian America released by Republic Pictures
1986 - Howard the Duck released by Universal Pictures
1989 - The Punisher released by New World Pictures
1990 - Captian America released by 21st Century Film

Those are the Old Marvel films. Please read the guidelines.

How many of those films got wide releases? Besides why not count all films before 2000?

No, I'm sorry but it does not. Again, please read the guidelines.

Maybe thre guidlelines are biased.

 

[Alex Logan]

This post is what summarizes the point of this thread. Like I stated, it's not til someone bashes Marvel's cranking out movies that someone "gets" the thread. Just saying. I mean, you can do what you want but I have seen threads like this countless times: people find a way to subtly bash either Marvel or DC and when someone's post isn't what that person wants to hear, it's cause you are a Marvel or DC guy. People are not allowed to like both, you have to choose one or the other. Just saying. And if you'd like, you can include all of Marvel's movies, including Howard the Duck to Xmen Origins if you want to be fair. You only including DC movies from the last 7 years is just coming off bias. Truth is, that quality over quantity argument is a freakin excuse. If it isn't Bats or Supes, WB won't touch it. GL seems to be part of the "new DCE" but we will wait and see.

You can see it anyway you like, you're wrong. I love both Marvel and DC.

^ As much as you do have a penchant for this sort of thing...and you DO....I'm reading this thread and you're right. Alex, you quote a guy who's basically saying that the way Dc does things is better than marvel, and says that thats the point of the thread, which indicates bias.

But then again, you didnt say you werent biased, and i find it a relief that the dc film forum dosent have a thread whining about how WB is satan incarnate because they wont make a martian manhunter movie.

That's not what thought he was saying. I thought he was saying that he prefered quality over quantity, which is the point of this thread.

Actually, I did say I wasn't biased in my first post.

How many of those films got wide releases? Besides why not count all films before 2000?

Maybe thre guidlelines are biased.

Who cares about wide releases? They ARE Marvel films. I've already answered that question.

Maybe you are biased.

 

[Docker2.0]

That actually makes it worse. You just lost your argument again.

 

[Alex Logan]

That actually makes it worse. You just lost your argument again.

And how's that?

 

[Docker2.0]

Eh, read it again. Tired of posting. To many Bud Lime's isn't good for my typing skills.