Compare and Contrast DC and Marvel Films

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eh, read it again. Tired of posting. To many Bud Lime's isn't good for my typing skills. :o

Well, considering you've been drinking and that there's only about three conversations going on in my last post who the hell knows what you talking about.
 
You can see it anyway you like, you're wrong. I love both Marvel and DC.



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.



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

Maybe you are biased.

Really, then why is it fair to put into consideration the Captain America movie which went direct to video? How can you compare a film that the studio should go direct to video to one the studios didn't feel deserve any release? How is that not bias?
 
Last edited:
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.

I waited 19 years for another Superman movie, only to be let down, so having to wait 20 years for a movie does not automatically mean it will be great. Or even good, for that matter. While it may appear to some that the "new" Marvel studio is churning Thor, IM2 and Captain America out too quickly, I think it only looks that way to us because we're so used to seeing years and years of WB indecisiveness, indifference and footdragging. Quality movies CAN be made in short order if the studio has their house in order, has a clear plan and sticks to it like it appears Marvel is doing now.

Granted, the jury is still out on whether Marvel can make it all work, but I'm gonna guess that these movies they're putting out will at least be decent films, and I'd rather take a mixed bag of several decent to great films over one or two films that may or may not be great. To use a baseball analogy, you're not gonna hit a home run by leaving the bat on your shoulder. Marvel is choosing it's pitches and swinging for the fences. WB is looking for a base on balls.
 
Really, then why is it fair to put into consideration the Captain America movie which went direct to video? How can you compare a film that the studio should go direct to video to one the studios didn't feel deserve any release? How is that not bias?

Had to do some research on that one didn't you? I'm not counting either of those films in the list here so what does it matter? The point you're trying to make here is one of the reasons I left the older films off the list.
 
Last edited:
Had to do some research on that one didn't you? I'm not counting either of those films in the list here so what does it matter? The point you're trying to make here is one of the reasons I left the older films off the list.

Leaving the older films off is cherry picking, it means bad films like Batman and Robin can't be counted against DC. If you check this list, the lion's share of DC movies were released before 2000, making this list very schewed.

All this proves is Marvel has more films then DC, not that DC has better films then Marvel, plus I didn't like Superman returns so I don't agree it gets a plus. Not to mention the majority of critics hated Constantine, why should that get plus.

So to me, it does seem like cherry picking.
 
Leaving the older films off is cherry picking, it means bad films like Batman and Robin can't be counted against DC. If you check this list, the lion's share of DC movies were released before 2000, making this list very schewed.

All this proves is Marvel has more films then DC, not that DC has better films then Marvel, plus I didn't like Superman returns so I don't agree it gets a plus. Not to mention the majority of critics hated Constantine, why should that get plus.

So to me, it does seem like cherry picking.

It also means bad films like the first Punisher and Blade won't be counted against Marvel. Well, you have start and stop somewhere. Why should those films be counted? They are not the same franchises. If I include the old DC films then I have to include the old Marvel films. Most of the old Marvel films are not all that great. The old DC films are about 50/50. So you want me to give DC MORE of an edge? I've already been accused of Marvel bashing, what's next?

That's your opinion. You can disagree about Superman Returns, that's what this thread is for. Who cares what the critics say? If it's a good film and you like it then who cares?
 
It also means bad films like the first Punisher and Blade won't be counted against Marvel. Well, you have start and stop somewhere. Why should those films be counted? They are not the same franchises. If I include the old DC films then I have to include the old Marvel films. Most of the old Marvel films are not all that great. The old DC films are about 50/50. So you want me to give DC MORE of an edge? I've already been accused of Marvel bashing, what's next?

First, I don't see how the first Blade movie was really bad.

Second I don't see how films like Captain America which went straight to video would count against Marvel, are we going to count direct to video animated features then? So the balance would be a bit more fair, if we include pre 2000 films.

Third, there were more DC then Marvel films back then, so there would more negatives in the DC section if you add them.

It seems like saying that just because Marvel released more films then DC, it has a worse track record, a premise I don't agree without, especially since I don't agree with some your pluses. I don't think DC has been more careful about releasing quality films then Marbvel, because they have made a lot of junk in the past. Also I don't see why Catwoman should be discounted considering it was created to cash in the character's name and it is on lists of movies based on DC comics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_DC_Comics

That's your opinion. You can disagree about Superman Returns, that's what this thread is for. Who cares what the critics say? If it's a good film and you like it then who cares?


Well I didn't like Superman Returns, I don't see why one of the dullest superhero movies ever, with one of the worst movie villain plots ever deserves a plus.

Besides if a lot of people said Constantine was bad, maybe it was bad. How is it better then say Daredevil, for example?
 
Last edited:
personally i am more a marvel fan myself, but there is a bunch of dc characters i do enjoy seeing cartoons, tv shows, or movies made off of them. Sure both companys wb/dc and marvel(co produced/solo efforts) have had good hits and they have had their fair share of stinkers too. All we fans can hope for now is that the companies see what is the better route to go and what fans want to see more and make more quality and right decisions in the movie making process.
 
First, I don't see how the first Blade movie was really bad.

Watch Blade and then watch Iron Man, then tell me Blade is not all that bad.

Second I don't see how films like Captain America which went straight to video would count against Marvel, are we going to count direct to video animated features then? So the balance would be a bit more fair, if we include pre 2000 films?

If I was to include the older films it would only be live action films. By the way that Captiain America film was pretty good, if they would have had a better budget it would have been great. Just how would it more fair?

Third, there were more DC then Marvel films back then, so there would more negatives in the DC section if you add them.

True, but there would also a few more plus 1's for DC, so how would that be more fair?

It seems like saying that just because Marvel released more films then DC, it has a worse track record, a premise I don't agree without, especially since I don't agree with some your pluses. I don't think DC has been more careful about releasing quality films then Marbvel, because they have made a lot of junk in the past. Also I don't see why Catwoman should be discounted considering it was created to cash in the character's name and it is on lists of movies based on DC comics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_DC_Comics?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Mavel has a "push it out the door" idea of films making. DC has an "everything MUST be epic" idea of film making. Niether idea is all that good and both companies have their flaws, but I do like the fact that DC is waiting until they have a solid product before they give it to the masses. As you said, DC has put out some crap in the past, which is possibly why they choose to view filmmaking the whay they do.

I've already given you a VERY good reason I didn't include Catwoman.

I'm sorry, buy I don't form my ideas or opinions from a website that can be edited by any Tom, Dick or Harry in the world.

Well I didn't like Superman Returns, I don't see why one of the dullest superhero movies ever, with one of the worst movie villain plots ever deserves a plus?

Alright, why is it one of the dullest superhero films ever? Why was it one of the worst villain plots ever? And don't say the stupid costume.

Maybe because you've "been there done that" before? What if the old Superman films were never made? Would you still fill the same way? Superman Returns was a good film, it did have many flaws, but it was a very good film. In fact, Superman Returns was made significantly better then half the films Mavel has ever put out.

If you really hate Superman Returns so much you should blame Bryan Singer.

Besides if a lot of people said Constantine was bad, maybe it was bad. How is it better then say Daredevil, for example?

This is the most ridiculous thing you've said yet. A film is bad because a lot of people said so? Give it a rest man. If YOU can't give me reasons why Constantine was a bad film then please, stop tell me it's bad.

Really? Daredevil is the film you're going to compaire here? Daredevil had WAY too many character and WAY too many things going on. The story was bad, the cast was all wrong, the cinematography was terrible, the score was train wreck, the CGI was bad... need go on? Oh yeah, what the heck was with Daredevil jumping around the city like Spiderman?
 
Last edited:
Granted, the jury is still out on whether Marvel can make it all work, but I'm gonna guess that these movies they're putting out will at least be decent films, and I'd rather take a mixed bag of several decent to great films over one or two films that may or may not be great. To use a baseball analogy, you're not gonna hit a home run by leaving the bat on your shoulder. Marvel is choosing it's pitches and swinging for the fences. WB is looking for a base on balls.

WB have hit plenty of home runs, it's just most aren't superhero related.
 
Alright, why is it one of the dullest superhero films ever? Why was it one of the worst villain plots ever? And don't say the stupid costume.

Maybe because you've "been there done that" before? What if the old Superman films were never made? Would you still fill the same way? Superman Returns was a good film, it did have many flaws, but it was a very good film. In fact, Superman Returns was made significantly better then half the films Mavel has ever put out.

If you really hate Superman Returns so much you should blame Bryan Singer.

Agreed! I also enjoy Superman Returns very much. It's definitely an epic and heartfelt film. And a lot of people liked it, that's why it got lots of strong reviews when it first came out. It also won some popular fan awards and it did solidly at the BO. That says something.

I also think that Constantine is very decent, but I never read the comics, so yeah... :o Love the score.

Interesting thread. ;)
 
Agreed! I also enjoy Superman Returns very much. It's definitely an epic and heartfelt film. And a lot of people liked it, that's why it got lots of strong reviews when it first came out. It also won some popular fan awards and it did solidly at the BO. That says something.

I also think that Constantine is very decent, but I never read the comics, so yeah... :o Love the score.

Interesting thread. ;)


Nice to see another person who like Superman Returns.

Thanks, I'm glad yu like it.
 
That and Marvel had many more iconic characters, whereas DC has Batman and Superman.

Nonsense, marvel characters in general may be more commonly known but i don't know about iconic. Like you can off handly mention cyclopse and you have a decent chance of people knowing who you are talking about but i don't think that counts as iconc.

Also when people think of super heros they amost by default think of capes and a letter on the chest.

and any gap dc had in iconic heroes it more than makes up in iconic villians
 
Watch Blade and then watch Iron Man, then tell me Blade is not all that bad.

Its not as good as Iron Man, but I don't see how that in of itself makes that bad.


If I was to include the older films it would only be live action films. By the way that Captiain America film was pretty good, if they would have had a better budget it would have been great. Just how would it more fair?

It would have more of a broad selection of DC movies to compare to.

Plus how is the Capitan America movie good: http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/10915-captaina


True, but there would also a few more plus 1's for DC, so how would that be more fair?

Its a boarder selection of movies.


No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Mavel has a "push it out the door" idea of films making. DC has an "everything MUST be epic" idea of film making. Niether idea is all that good and both companies have their flaws, but I do like the fact that DC is waiting until they have a solid product before they give it to the masses. As you said, DC has put out some crap in the past, which is possibly why they choose to view filmmaking the whay they do.

I don't see how Marvel pushing stuff out the door, if they did, a bunch of C-list heroes like moon Knight would have gotten films by now.

I've already given you a VERY good reason I didn't include Catwoman.

I'm sorry, buy I don't form my ideas or opinions from a website that can be edited by any Tom, Dick or Harry in the world.

I'm not buying that reason, did the Punisher movie from 89 have the Marvel logo?

Alright, why is it one of the dullest superhero films ever? Why was it one of the worst villain plots ever? And don't say the stupid costume.

It was dull because it had no super hero/super villain fights and it was a rehash of the first movie.

Why did Lex's plan make sense? Why would anyone want to buy land on that miserable rock? Why didn't Lex use that tech to found a company or make weapons to take over the world, that would have made more sense then the the evil plot SR. Tell me how that plan made sense.

Maybe because you've "been there done that" before? What if the old Superman films were never made? Would you still fill the same way? Superman Returns was a good film, it did have many flaws, but it was a very good film. In fact, Superman Returns was made significantly better then half the films Mavel has ever put out.

I wouldn't say that if superman Returns isn't a rehash of superman I and did its own instead. Why didn't they they just do a Post crisis Superman story on film?

If you really hate Superman Returns so much you should blame Bryan Singer.

I do, but that still doesn't change the fact it isn't a good film.

This is the most ridiculous thing you've said yet. A film is bad because a lot of people said so? Give it a rest man. If YOU can't give me reasons why Constantine was a bad film then please, stop tell me it's bad.

Typical bad acting by Reeves. Giant plot holes (why would Angela allow Constantine to drown her in a tub? That's a real leap of trust! Allowing some seemingly unstable individual to do this, more or less after you met them, that doesn't make sense.)

How is it better then X-Men 1? Why does it deserve a plus along side Iron Man and Dark Knight?

What is good about it?

Really? Daredevil is the film you're going to compaire here? Daredevil had WAY too many character and WAY too many things going on. The story was bad, the cast was all wrong, the cinematography was terrible, the score was train wreck, the CGI was bad... need go on? Oh yeah, what the heck was with Daredevil jumping around the city like Spiderman?

It wasn't a dull rehash of movie released in 1978, where the climax was superman lifting an island its climax. Its at least as good Superman returns.

I never said it was that good, it don't see why Constantine is better then it, it seems like you are setting the bar pretty low for DC.
 
This thread could've been made much simpler by including any property films from either side, because the older the Superman films were IMO a credit to DC while Batman and Robin wasn't. Others such as The Spirit and others are also DC properties yet were not included because of Alex's preferences, yet they fit what your requirements for the thread were. That is indeed cheery picking, whether you like it or not. If we're going to start including such DTV movies such as Captian America, you may have to even consider the recent cartoon DTV movies.

Making this a poll thread where you can vote on each movie you consider a credit to the company then discuss those choices would've made this easier and not just based on what the thread maker's favorites were. Example being many would disagree over Superman Returns, considering it basically took Superman in a direction not many wanted to see.
 
Last edited:
Its not as good as Iron Man, but I don't see how that in of itself makes that bad.

It doesn't, I was just giving you a frame of reference. I don't think any of the Blade films are all that great. If you do then that's fine, we don't have to agree.

It would have more of a broad selection of DC movies to compare to.

Plus how is the Capitan America movie good: http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/10915-captaina

By adding the old DC films the old Marvel Films would need to be included as well, otherwise, I would be accusted of "cherry picking" in Marvels favor. We've gone over this so many times it's sickening.

Again, if Capitan America would have had a much bigger budget it would have been great.

Its a boarder selection of movies.

Same reason as above.

I don't see how Marvel pushing stuff out the door, if they did, a bunch of C-list heroes like moon Knight would have gotten films by now.

You've missed the point entirely. By people say that Mavel had "pushed" things out the door, it means that they don't care how good the film is and they are only interested in capitalizing. Now maybe that's true and maybe it is not, but that's the way it looks to myself and others.

I'm not buying that reason, did the Punisher movie from 89 have the Marvel logo?

Well, then don't buy it. I'm not asking you too. I don't "buy" many of your ideas either, but I don't ask you over and over to state them.

That's also not my main reason, please go back and read. I'm also not including Punisher 89 so I don't see how that point is relevent.

It was dull because it had no super hero/super villain fights and it was a rehash of the first movie.

Why did Lex's plan make sense? Why would anyone want to buy land on that miserable rock? Why didn't Lex use that tech to found a company or make weapons to take over the world, that would have made more sense then the the evil plot SR. Tell me how that plan made sense.

I wouldn't say that if superman Returns isn't a rehash of superman I and did its own instead. Why didn't they they just do a Post crisis Superman story on film?

I do, but that still doesn't change the fact it isn't a good film.

So in order to be a good film it has to have super hero/super villain fights? You should post that in every thread.

Your second reason proves my point. You didn't like Superman Returns because it was too much like what came before. I know exaclty how you feel. The first time I saw the film I left the theater, but after buying the DVD I noticed what my prejustice had ignored.

In your hast to condemn the film you've missed a very important plot point here. They would buy the land because they would no other choice.

"It's simple physics, Ms. Lane. Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time."

In other words, the United States would be under water.

You've also missed what Lex said after telling Lois his plan:

"They'll WHAT? I'll have advanced alien technology thousands of years beyond what anyone could throw at me. Bring it on!"

Does it sound like he was going to stop at land?

The fact is that Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor was one of the best villain preformaces in as many years. I truely hated his character, which is something that many films in modern cinema are sadly lacking. Take two other great villain from film, Darth Vader and The Joker. Both were done very well, but I didn't hate either of them, in fact I loved their characters.

Weither or not you like the story Spacey performance can't not be ignored, if you choose to do so then I would say you are unfairly biased.

You're basis for Superman Returns not being a good film is only based on the fact that it's too close to what you've seen before. That's ridiculous logic. I also wish Singer had given us something new and refreshing, but if I were to say that Supermans Returns is a bad film solely based on your same opinion then I would be very foolish. It's a very good thing that your not a film critic.

Typical bad acting by Reeves. Giant plot holes (why would Angela allow Constantine to drown her in a tub? That's a real leap of trust! Allowing some seemingly unstable individual to do this, more or less after you met them, that doesn't make sense.)

I'll give you Reeves acting during SOME of the film, but giant plot holes? I don't think you remember the film. Angela didn't know he intened to drown her, which he didn't by the way, she also fought very vigorously to get free. Besides that's is not a giant plot hole. I giant plot is how Daredevil, a mere human with heightened senses, could jump like Spiderman.

Seemingly unstable individual? After seeing what they saw together how was he a seemingly unstable individual?

How is it better then X-Men 1? Why does it deserve a plus along side Iron Man and Dark Knight?

What is good about it?

The first X-Men was quite cheesy in many areas. It also didn't stay true to many of the characters abilities or motivations. I really don't see the point in asking me to compare Constantine to every Marvel film on the list. Where are you going with this?

Constantine had a great story, good cinematography, CGI was good, interesting characters that I cared about and mostly solid acting.

It wasn't a dull rehash of movie released in 1978, where the climax was superman lifting an island its climax. Its at least as good Superman returns.

I never said it was that good, it don't see why Constantine is better then it, it seems like you are setting the bar pretty low for DC.

Instead of going back to Superman Returns why don't you try to back up Daredevil? Clearly, you don't know very much about film. I'm sorry if I sound condescending, it's not my intenstion, but come on man...

You're trying to tell me that Daredevil is just as good if not better then Superman Returns? Leaving all flaws of each film behind and focusing just on the production value of each film Superman Returns is superior in everyway.

It seems like you are setting the bar low for everyone here.
 
Last edited:
Others such as The Spirit and others are also DC properties yet were not included because of Alex's preferences, yet they fit what your requirements for the thread were. That is indeed cheery picking, whether you like it or not.

How do the "The Spirit" and "others" meet the requirements for this thread? If you can give me solid ideas to why then I'll be happy to put them in the list.
 
Dude your last two posts were so one sided to DC it's not even funny. This thread can't even be taken serious any more. :whatever:
 
By adding the old DC films the old Marvel Films would need to be included as well, otherwise, I would be accusted of "cherry picking" in Marvels favor. We've gone over this so many times it's sickening.

Again, if Capitan America would have had a much bigger budget it would have been great.

The plot sucked as well, Captain America pretending to be sick to steal some guy's car and Red Skull being "sympathetic" are not in character

You've missed the point entirely. By people say that Mavel had "pushed" things out the door, it means that they don't care how good the film is and they are only interested in capitalizing. Now maybe that's true and maybe it is not, but that's the way it looks to myself and others.

And myself and others think your thread is biased towards DC, what's your point?

I don't buy that principal for several different reasons, one DC has released crappy movies like Catwomn and Batman and robin and besides Iron Man, the studios have control over the Marvel movies, not Marvel themselves.

Well, then don't buy it. I'm not asking you too. I don't "buy" many of your ideas either, but I don't ask you over and over to state them.

That's also not my main reason, please go back and read. I'm also not including Punisher 89 so I don't see how that point is relevent.

I just don't see Catwoman shouldn't be considered. That seems cherry picking, so when you said


So in order to be a good film it has to have super hero/super villain fights? You should post that in every thread.

It would help if your superhero movie had some good action scenes, the crow didn't have a super villain, but it had better action then Superman Returns.

The climax to Superman Returns was him lifting an island, that is so anti climatic.

Your second reason proves my point. You didn't like Superman Returns because it was too much like what came before. I know exaclty how you feel. The first time I saw the film I left the theater, but after buying the DVD I noticed what my prejustice had ignored.

I don't see how that doesn't make that criticism invalid.

In your hast to condemn the film you've missed a very important plot point here. They would buy the land because they would no other choice.

"It's simple physics, Ms. Lane. Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time."

In other words, the United States would be under water.

And he would become the most hated person in the world and people would pretend to land on the ilsnad just to kill him, good plan. :whatever:

You've also missed what Lex said after telling Lois his plan:

"They'll WHAT? I'll have advanced alien technology thousands of years beyond what anyone could throw at me. Bring it on!"

Does it sound like he was going to stop at land?

But we didn't see the weapons, that line about them was a waste. Movies should show these things, not just talk about them. What a waste!

You know what would have been a better a story, Lex actually making these weapons and using them to take over the world, that would have been far more interesting then this island thing.


The fact is that Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor was one of the best villain preformaces in as many years. I truely hated his character, which is something that many films in modern cinema are sadly lacking. Take two other great villain from film, Darth Vader and The Joker. Both were done very well, but I didn't hate either of them, in fact I loved their characters.

I hated the character because he was annoying instead of terrifyingly evil, its not Lex Luthor, its bad used car salesman, there is no Machiavellian cunning in this character and he has no personality beyond being generic evil. If superman had bothered to lock up the Fortress before leaving Lex would been screwed, all he did was steal from someone else, he didn't create his own tech or his own company or anything. He's about as deep as Dick Dastardly, Post crisis Lex is far more interesting then movie Lex. I never felt like he was a genius, he just come off as an idiot who got lucky.

Weither or not you like the story Spacey performance can't not be ignored, if you choose to do so then I would say you are unfairly biased.

The character was so poorly that the performance didn't work for me.

You're basis for Superman Returns not being a good film is only based on the fact that it's too close to what you've seen before. That's ridiculous logic. I also wish Singer had given us something new and refreshing, but if I were to say that Supermans Returns is a bad film solely based on your same opinion then I would be very foolish. It's a very good thing that your not a film critic.

That's just one problem but it is a big one, if the film has nothing original to say, which this didn't, what worth does it have.

Also a crappy Lex luthor and a superman who is a stalker and a dead beat dad are also reasons why that movie sucks.

I'll give you Reeves acting during SOME of the film, but giant plot holes? I don't think you remember the film. Angela didn't know he intened to drown her, which he didn't by the way, she also fought very vigorously to get free. Besides that's is not a giant plot hole. I giant plot is how Daredevil, a mere human with heightened senses, could jump like Spiderman.

In the comics he does that, because a sense a balance is related to other senses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilibrioception plus he does that in the comcis.

That tub thing still made no sense, why would Angela allow herself to be put in that type of situation at all.

Seemingly unstable individual? After seeing what they saw together how was he a seemingly unstable individual?

From the respective of characters in the movie who don't have the same knowledge as the audience, he would seem unstable.


The first X-Men was quite cheesy in many areas. It also didn't stay true to many of the characters abilities or motivations. I really don't see the point in asking me to compare Constantine to every Marvel film on the list. Where are you going with this?

The action is better then Superman returns, the heroes are more likable and the villains are more fleshed out.

Constantine had a great story, good cinematography, CGI was good, interesting characters that I cared about and mostly solid acting.

Except for the lead.


Instead of going back to Superman Returns why don't you try to back up Daredevil? Clearly, you don't know very much about film. I'm sorry if I sound condescending, it's not my intenstion, but come on man...

Why do you have a degree in film or something.

Roger Ebert liked Daredevil better then superman Returns and Constantine, does he know nothing about film as well.

You're trying to tell me that Daredevil is just as good if not better then Superman Returns? Leaving all flaws of each film behind and focusing just on the production value of each film Superman Returns is superior in everyway.

So did Ebert and I trust his opinion more then your's.
 
Dude your last two posts were so one sided to DC it's not even funny. This thread can't even be taken serious any more. :whatever:

And niether can you.

The plot sucked as well, Captain America pretending to be sick to steal some guy's car and Red Skull being "sympathetic" are not in character

And myself and others think your thread is biased towards DC, what's your point?

I don't buy that principal for several different reasons, one DC has released crappy movies like Catwomn and Batman and robin and besides Iron Man, the studios have control over the Marvel movies, not Marvel themselves.

I just don't see Catwoman shouldn't be considered. That seems cherry picking, so when you said

It would help if your superhero movie had some good action scenes, the crow didn't have a super villain, but it had better action then Superman Returns.

The climax to Superman Returns was him lifting an island, that is so anti climatic.

I don't see how that doesn't make that criticism invalid.

And he would become the most hated person in the world and people would pretend to land on the ilsnad just to kill him, good plan. :whatever:

But we didn't see the weapons, that line about them was a waste. Movies should show these things, not just talk about them. What a waste!

You know what would have been a better a story, Lex actually making these weapons and using them to take over the world, that would have been far more interesting then this island thing.

I hated the character because he was annoying instead of terrifyingly evil, its not Lex Luthor, its bad used car salesman, there is no Machiavellian cunning in this character and he has no personality beyond being generic evil. If superman had bothered to lock up the Fortress before leaving Lex would been screwed, all he did was steal from someone else, he didn't create his own tech or his own company or anything. He's about as deep as Dick Dastardly, Post crisis Lex is far more interesting then movie Lex. I never felt like he was a genius, he just come off as an idiot who got lucky.

The character was so poorly that the performance didn't work for me.

That's just one problem but it is a big one, if the film has nothing original to say, which this didn't, what worth does it have.

Also a crappy Lex luthor and a superman who is a stalker and a dead beat dad are also reasons why that movie sucks.

In the comics he does that, because a sense a balance is related to other senses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilibrioception plus he does that in the comcis.

That tub thing still made no sense, why would Angela allow herself to be put in that type of situation at all.

From the respective of characters in the movie who don't have the same knowledge as the audience, he would seem unstable.

The action is better then Superman returns, the heroes are more likable and the villains are more fleshed out.

Except for the lead.

Why do you have a degree in film or something.

Roger Ebert liked Daredevil better then superman Returns and Constantine, does he know nothing about film as well.

So did Ebert and I trust his opinion more then your's.

You're stubborn refusal to accept any point of view or opinion other than your own is truley astonishing. I've tried to look at your arguments objectively and be open to you opinions, but it's clear to me now that this is pointless. I'm not going to continue to debate anything with you.
 
DC has made my favorite ever superhero movie (TDK) but the majority of superhero movies I like is marvel. my top 10

TDK - dc
SM2 - marvel
superman the movie - dc
Iron man - marvel
SM1 - marvel
superman 2 - dc
Blade 2 - marvel
Blade - marvel
X2 - marvel
BB - dc

dc - 4
marvel - 6


I just find marvel more entertaining.
superman returns - hated
watchmen - hated
batman ('88) - overrated
batman returns - hated
batman forever - hated
batman and robin - oh DEAR!
 
Last edited:
My favourite comic book movies.

TDK, Batman Begins, Batman 89, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Superman The Movie, V for Vendetta, Watchmen, X-Men, X-2, Blade, Blade II, Hulk, Iron Man, Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, Daredevil Directors Cut, The Incredible Hulk.

So I'd say I prefer Marvel. Without Batman DC basically has nothing, movie wise. DC need to branch out more, and it seems that's what they are doing.
 
My favourite comic book movies.

TDK, Batman Begins, Batman 89, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Superman The Movie, V for Vendetta, Watchmen, X-Men, X-2, Blade, Blade II, Hulk, Iron Man, Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, Daredevil Directors Cut, The Incredible Hulk.

So I'd say I prefer Marvel. Without Batman DC basically has nothing, movie wise. DC need to branch out more, and it seems that's what they are doing.


opps, I forgot about STM and superman 2. the majority of my top ten is still marvel and if the list extends to top 20 then the next 10 would be dominated by marvel as well.

however when it comes to animated movies dc wins hands down. I only have one marvel animated movie - hulk vs.. every other animated movie I have is DC
also when it comes to saturday morning cartoons dc wins as well although spectacular spider-man is very high on my list.
 
BTAS and JLA were cool. But X-Men TAS is probably my fave comic book cartoon from back in the day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,588
Messages
21,767,651
Members
45,603
Latest member
Blacktopolis24
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"