Comic Reel-lief - The CBM Wars: Marvel v DC

[RSS]

Back in the day, DC could do little wrong when it came to publicizing their major characters through the medium of film. The Superman franchise is still held in high regard today, whereas the 90s Batman franchise grossed over $1.25 billion at the box office. Whilst those films were hitting, Marvel was releasing hilarious low-budget versions of The Punisher, Captain America and The Fantastic Four, following the big budget bomb that was Howard the Duck. But now Marvel's films are released thick and fast whilst DC release one or two a year. What happened?

The above is from: http://www.earth-2.net/columns/wilson_i/comic-reel-lief-04

[Dread]

I still like Ang Lee's Hulk despite what anybody says. One of the best Marvel films to date.

Regardless of whether the Marvel films as a whole (not necessarily including SM) are better, DC makes more money and in the film business that makes them win.

Stardust, by the way was a novel first and then adapted by Gaiman and Russell into comic book form before being made into a movie.

[Guest]

I still like Ang Lee's Hulk despite what anybody says. One of the best Marvel films to date.

I saw around the first hour and a half or so, and I enjoyed it. Never got around to finishing it for whatever reason.

[slothian]

I still like Ang Lee's Hulk despite what anybody says. One of the best Marvel films to date.

I'd argue that it's certainly one of the best acted films of the genre, but the script took a nose dive in the second half of the film and not deciding on who the villain was really hurt it as a whole. Not to mention the recockulous ending which you couldn't really follow. But I do think it gets more hate than is warranted - I thought the panel effects were quite cool at first, until they got used on Talbot, who single-handedly made them look douche-y.

Regardless of whether the Marvel films as a whole (not necessarily including SM) are better, DC makes more money and in the film business that makes them win.

In general, DC films all comand a respectable grossing - Batman & Robin beat Daredevil in takings, when it was a much worse film - but their lack of production and franchise creation has been their loss at Marvel's gain. The Spider-Man movies, love 'em or hate 'em (and I know where you fall on that line, Des!), round out the top 3 whilst the latter X-Men films also took in more than $2 million domestically. With the Top 10 breaking down as 5 Marvel films, 3 DC and 2 others, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say DC makes more moolah.

Stardust, by the way was a novel first and then adapted by Gaiman and Russell into comic book form before being made into a movie.

I do keep stumbling over the origins of Stardust - I knew it was a novel as well but must have been in a "comics-before-novel" state of mind when writing the article. I think I've done the same in the audio review as well - if I have, I'm sure Mike will catch it beforehand!!

[Dread]

Regardless of whether the Marvel films as a whole (not necessarily including SM) are better, DC makes more money and in the film business that makes them win.

In general, DC films all comand a respectable grossing - Batman & Robin beat Daredevil in takings, when it was a much worse film - but their lack of production and franchise creation has been their loss at Marvel's gain. The Spider-Man movies, love 'em or hate 'em (and I know where you fall on that line, Des!), round out the top 3 whilst the latter X-Men films also took in more than $2 million domestically. With the Top 10 breaking down as 5 Marvel films, 3 DC and 2 others, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say DC makes more moolah.

That was poorly put and rushed because I"m at work not trying to get caught talking about comic book movies online but what I meant was that recently Marvel is pumping out the films at an alarming rate but when DC does release one, it is generally a big film whereas Marvel seems content with Ghost Rider, Daredevil and the FF movies which are piss poor in quality even though they look shiny.

Not saying that Superman Returns was great, because it wasn't, but for all intents and purposes it was still an amazing popcorn movie if you weren't a fanboy and a box office powerhouse.

The Spider-Man comment: I'm getting this a lot these days...SM 3 was utter shite tossed from a monkey cage by an overrated director who had little to no care for how the characters were portrayed in the biggest waste of movie budget since Waterworld. On the other hand, the first two movies are some of my favourite SM stories, period.

[slothian]

Regardless of whether the Marvel films as a whole (not necessarily including SM) are better, DC makes more money and in the film business that makes them win.

In general, DC films all comand a respectable grossing - Batman & Robin beat Daredevil in takings, when it was a much worse film - but their lack of production and franchise creation has been their loss at Marvel's gain. The Spider-Man movies, love 'em or hate 'em (and I know where you fall on that line, Des!), round out the top 3 whilst the latter X-Men films also took in more than $2 million domestically. With the Top 10 breaking down as 5 Marvel films, 3 DC and 2 others, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say DC makes more moolah.

That was poorly put and rushed because I"m at work not trying to get caught talking about comic book movies online but what I meant was that recently Marvel is pumping out the films at an alarming rate but when DC does release one, it is generally a big film whereas Marvel seems content with Ghost Rider, Daredevil and the FF movies which are piss poor in quality even though they look shiny.

But because CBMs are in vogue, it makes those film companies money on a more consistent basis. And if the films were helmed by more competent people than Mark Steven Johnson or writers like Zak Penn, the release pattern isn't exactly that stupid. What I *DO* think Marvel screw up on, in terms of releasing movies, is setting the sequel date before a film has been released. Not only is it being premature and slightly arrogant to suggest that the current film will definitely do well enough to warrant a sequel, but it rushes the production of the subsequent film, hence the disappointments of X-Men: The Last Stand and Spider-Man 3.

Not saying that Superman Returns was great, because it wasn't, but for all intents and purposes it was still an amazing popcorn movie if you weren't a fanboy and a box office powerhouse.

Whilst I try and review films taking into account both the neutral & fanboy perspectives, I think even the neutral watcher would fail to get much out of the last 20-30 minutes of Superman Returns. I do see where your point's coming from though.

The Spider-Man comment: I'm getting this a lot these days...SM 3 was utter shite tossed from a monkey cage by an overrated director who had little to no care for how the characters were portrayed in the biggest waste of movie budget since Waterworld. On the other hand, the first two movies are some of my favourite SM stories, period.

Heh! Honestly, the only reason I generalised you that way was your comment on Raimi in the Spidey 3 thread. Even detractors of Raimi's style generally rate the first two films. I still enjoy how the symbiote suit basically fuelled Parker's moodset throughout all the other many, many, many other things he went through over the course of the film. But no-one's going to deny that it was a clusterfuck, not least me.

[James D.]

I really enjoyed this, Ian. That Enron line about B&R was awesome.