DC Comics on Film

[mfunk9786]

One thing I don't understand about negative reception of comic book movie trailers like this: Why are all these people still going to see this stuff on the first day if it looks so terrible to them? Is it that difficult to resist the temptation to see your hundredth comic book movie of the year if it looks like such an abomination?

[Ribs]

To be fair, they have made Doomsday look quite a bit like the Abomination.

[captveg]

To be fair, they have made Doomsday look quite a bit like the Abomination.

But the characters look alike in the comics, too, so it's somewhat unavoidable, unless one wants to wholly re-design him.

Comics Doomsday: http://screenrant.com/wp-content/upload ... -Rumor.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Movie Doomsday: http://i.imgur.com/9sDH8p0.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Comics Abomination: http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2014 ... _cover.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Movie Abomination: http://static1.techinsider.io/image/565 ... e-hulk.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Arguably, the Abomination movie version moved more towards the comic Doomsday than the comic Abomination already was.

[dx23]

One thing I don't understand about negative reception of comic book movie trailers like this: Why are all these people still going to see this stuff on the first day if it looks so terrible to them? Is it that difficult to resist the temptation to see your hundredth comic book movie of the year if it looks like such an abomination?

Actually, as Fantastic Four proved, comic books films aren't infallible to comic nerdom and people will refuse to see a movie that has deviated tons from its source material and that it looks like crap on the trailers. Same can be said by many other comic book flops like Batman and Robin, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Catwoman, Elektra, Daredevil, Green Lantern, X-Men: Last Stand, Amazing Spider-Man 2. I still think people will give Batman vs Superman a chance because of the so many factors of the new characters in the film and the promise that this could jumpstart the DC Cinematic Universe. Still, if the next several trailers are panned as the one last night and negative reviews start coming in before the movie is released (or if the movie is not screened for critics), then I can see this movie flopping as bad as Fantastic Four (the one released this past year)

I don't do groupthink. Man of Steel is a fantastic film in my book, and this to me looks like a great continuation/expansion of that world. It's rooted in comic tropes that have been around for decades but have yet to be explored in films.

And I quite like the Marvel films, but they are not the only way to go. DC has always appealed to me more because of its more conflicted characters, so I'm excited to be getting it.

My first thought to your post was "are you shitting me", but I see that you are a contrarian. I don't think anyone criticizing the the trailer is doing it out of group think. They are doing it, including myself, because so far, the trailer is not impressive and seems to be repeating the same mistakes as the first film. You are in a truly minority of people liking the trailer and liking the first film. It wasn't only comic book fans that disliked it, but it was the general public and the critics.

The "are you shitting me part" popped in my head when you said that Man of Steel is rooted in comic tropes and that DC has more conflicted characters than Marvel. First, yes, Man of Steel use some of the comic book tropes, like Superman as a savior, as the alien that scares the rest of the world, as the powerful God-like figure, as the All-American boy, and the "S" symbol meaning hope (this last one, a recent one done by Mark Waid). All those comic book tropes were completely miscommunicated throughout the whole film, like if Zack Snyder and the rest of production team read the cliff notes of Superman, instead of actually digging throughout the whole history. Grant Morrison proved that he could communicate all these tropes well in his 12-part All-Star Superman series. Even better, Bruce Timm showed that he could do the same (even better IMO) in Superman: The Animated Series and even in the Superman 75th Anniversary Animated 2 minute short released in 2013. Second, with the exception of Batman, there is not one other character in the DC Universe that is "complicated" or more complicated than any Marvel character. What has made Marvel outsell and stand out over DC comics since the Silver Age is the fact that the Marvel characters are complicated and more relatable to the general public than any of the DC characters. The majority of the main DC characters like Superman, Green Lantern, Flash, Aquaman, the Atom, Hawkman, Hawkgirl, Wonder Woman, Green Arrow, Black Canary, Firestorm, Captain Marvel, Plastic Man, Spectre, Dr. Fate, etc., had the same cookie cutter look and perfect lives that many readers couldn't relate to. The reason why the main theme of Kingdom Come and many of the DC Comic book series has been the God-like power and control all these superheroes have in comparison the non-powered humans. It wasn't until the mid-seventies, when DC Comics decided to tone down in the comic books the power of their characters and tried to make them more relatable and conflicted in more human stories, like the Green Lantern/Green Arrow "Traveling Heroes" storyline. On the other hand, Marvel's main theme since the Silver Age has been internal and external conflict. Characters like Spider-Man, Hulk, the Fantastic Four, the X-Men, Silver Surfer, Captain America, Iron Man, Ant-Man, Black Panther, the Inhumans, Nick Fury, Magneto, Dr. Doom, Dr. Strange, Moon Knight, Daredevil, Power Man, Iron Fist, Ghost Rider, etc, have been all about internal and external conflict. With Marvel, we care more about Peter Parker, Bruce Banner, Ben Grimm, Jean Grey, Hank McCoy, Norrin Radd, Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, T'Challa, Matt Murdock, Johnny Blaze, etc, than their superhero counterpart. Bruce Wayne/Batman is the only character that comes close to the emotional conflicts that Marvel characters have.

[swo17]

Actually, as Fantastic Four proved, comic books films aren't infallible to comic nerdom and people will refuse to see a movie that has deviated tons from its source material and that it looks like crap on the trailers.

It still made literally more than 100 times what The Assassin has made to date.

[dx23]

Actually, as Fantastic Four proved, comic books films aren't infallible to comic nerdom and people will refuse to see a movie that has deviated tons from its source material and that it looks like crap on the trailers.

It still made literally more than 100 times what The Assassin has made to date.

Actually, 6 times what The Assassin has made. The Assassin made around $10mil net profit so far, while FF has made $60mil, maybe less when all is said and done. We are talking about the Chinese film, right?

[swo17]

I was going off of this. A single Google search was all the effort I felt my joke merited.

[dx23]

I was going off of this. A single Google search was all the effort I felt my joke merited.

That's the same mantra Dane Cook has.

[captveg]

The general public liked Man of Steel, as its imdb.com rating and cinemascore indicate. They just didn't love it.

But everyone else can hate that film all they want. I loved it, and ultimately I'm all that matters for me.

As for DC, I'm specifically talking about the post-70s characters finally being brought to the screen.

Civil War is the first real chance Marvel has taken with their film characters so far, IMO. Otherwise, they've played the formula safe.

Look, I like Marvel. Quite a bit. I'd argue that I like most of their films even more than the Marvel-only fanboys - I consistently rank The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 3, and Age of Ultron higher than most, for example.

But their formula up to this point has been pretty consistent and rooted in silver age / pre-80s. And we're getting a high school Peter Parker yet again, which is fine, but its certainly not fresh in regards to the cinematic Spider-Man.

I mean, props to them for nailing it often - and for pushing beyond their formula for Civil War and the Netflix shows - but they've been less risk averse up to this point. (In story and character, not in setting/properties).

What DC and Snyder are doing here is far more risky, IMO. Man of Steel challenges people with what an all-powerful being would mean to the world, both ideologically and collaterally. Yes, its no where near the comics, but movie audiences are 40+ years behind the comics in these things, so for THEM, it was shocking. And now when some felt that was going to far, he doubled (tripled/quadrupled, even) down with BvS. And that impresses me from that standpoint. It doesn't work for everyone, but I don't know that I'd want it to. Does every comic story please everyone? Of course not. Playing it safe would have been to just remake the Donner films again. And I like the Donner films and Singer's safe approach with Superman Returns, but it had its time and it was done.

But this is different. This is exploring the comics post-70s that most of the comic films have been reluctant to do, since the gold & silver age comics have been the basis for the majority of the films - especially Superman.

Between BvS and Suicide Squad we're getting some much needed fresh takes (for cinema at least) on how superheroes & villains exist in the world, and that excites me.

Besides, Superman-Batman-Wonder Woman squaring up to throw down with a monstrous villain - that's HISTORICAL even when it comes to comic book films. Doomsday, Bizarro, The Clock King - who the hell cares who it is against? (OK, maybe the Clock King would be too much... )

I'm not saying this to be contrarian or to bullshit people. I'm saying it because, hell yes, its finally being brought to the screen. I mean, just a small snippet of Doomsday here is more footage of a comic based Superman villain that isn't Luthor or Zod than all the last 40 years of films combined. Bring it on.

[flyonthewall2983]

I have my doubts but I'm glad at least a few of us are excited for this.

[dx23]

Actually, I'm all for DC updating their characters and bringing some post 1970 comic book stuff to the big screen. I think the Flash TV show is doing an amazing job doing this, since the series is mostly based on the stuff Geoff Johns and Mark Waid have written in the last 15 years, including the things like the Speed Force. I thought Nolan did a wonderful job too. Snyder hasn't done this and we can't just be glad that we are seeing the Trinity together for the first time on the big screen. If the movie doesn't do well, then it may be the last time we may see this happen.

My point is, Marvel took their time and built stuff over the past 10 years that has led them to be able to be bought by Disney and get to do projects with basically unknown characters like the Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man. They've been so good and smart with building a cinematic universe, that it has allowed them to create a 20 year plan for movies with a diverse selection of characters. DC/WB on the other hand, keep rushing things, giving all these workload/projects to single director with a very narrow vision of filmmaking. The fact that they announced a film version of Flash the same day that the TV show debuted with a different actor shows how much disconnection there is at every level.

Captveg, you mentioned that DC is using more modern ideas, yet the version of Lex Luthor for this movie sounds exactly as the pre-Crisis, Gene Hackman/Kevin Spacey version instead of the current ruthless, imposing, 14th level of intellect character that we have seen in the past 20 years. Jesse Eisenberg is completely wrong for the part since he simply doesn't have any range as an actor besides mumbling like Michael Cera. Even worse, it seems that he is channeling the Joker instead of actually playing Luthor. In every clip they have shown of the film, he sounds exactly like the Joker. This tells me a lot of what I should be expecting for the movie. It would be like if Fox/Marvel cast Seth Rogen as Magneto or Jonah Hill as Norman Osborn/Green Goblin and then expect people to accept them on those roles just because.

I would love for DC to create a successful cinematic universe. I've been a huge comic book and superhero fan since I was a kid in the 80s. Batman is my favorite superhero of them all. Still, it's hard for me to be optimistic about anything WB does when internally, they treat superhero properties with a lot of disdain and the stuff they have done so far, like Green Lantern and Man of Steel have failed to impress me. Look at how disconnected WB/DC is that instead of working in sync with sister companies like TBS and debut this trailer on Conan, they went to Jimmy Kimmel, who isn't the rating leader at this hour and is part of the competition (ABC/MARVEL/Disney), and showed the trailer there. Marvel on the other hand, does things the right way and promote their products, from the movies to their TV shows using their sister companies like ABC and ESPN. Why do you think they debuted the Captain America: Civil War trailer on Monday Night Football?

[captveg]

Well, I for one am glad that the TV shows are not in continuity with the films, mainly because it allows me to completely ignore the TV shows, which after Smallville and a sampling of Arrow I have very little interest in. By comparison, it bugs me that Agents of SHIELD is so mediocre yet part of the same continuity, as though I'm being punished for watching their mediocre part of the story in order to keep up. If one of the movies underwhelms I can more easily ignore it and its 2 hours of content than whole seasons of 15+ hours of content.

I'm also much more a fan of the individual filmmakers getting more wiggle room in their own film sandboxes. There's more chance for higher highs (and lower lows) that way, but also less chance of going stale, at least to my tastes. Maybe I'd feel differently if the MCU didn't exist already, but since it does I want a contrast in the two film series in this regard. (As an aside, I hope Star Wars can be a bit of both - the more homogenized stories that are more producer driven for the Episode films, and the more director/creator driven stories for the Anthology films).

As for Eisenberg - I'll wait for the final film to form an opinion about what he's doing. My suspicion is that the character is putting on somewhat of an act in public to misdirect attention to himself and his less honorable behind-the-scenes plans. And I also suspect that they'll move his character closer to the more modern Luthor via the events of this film and into Justice League, and the released photo of him with the bald head will play into that (I'm thinking the whole Kyrptonian tech experiments thing fundamentally changes him). I really don't see the Joker here - the Joker is maniacal, not skeevy/douchebag elitist.

Also, I find it somewhat humorous that the lack of corporate synergy is pointed at as a major creative failing point. "Be more corporately institutionalized!" is an uncommon rallying cry.

[bainbridgezu]

It bugs me that Agents of SHIELD is so mediocre yet part of the same continuity, as though I'm being punished for watching their mediocre part of the story in order to keep up.

You're in luck: Several behind-the-scenes types confirmed a while back that while Marvel's features are clearly part of SHIELD's continuity, the show does not exist with regard to the films. For example, Coulson stayed dead so far as any of the movies are concerned. The film people are embarrassed by the television department's output, while the TV people are envious of the feature division's resources -- such as their access to sets other than non-descript hallways. Apparently, the ABC shows were only developed by Disney as a way to generate more profit while keeping their hooks in Joss Whedon back when they still wanted him. That said, this does not apply to the Netflix series, which are part of the film universe.

[dx23]

It bugs me that Agents of SHIELD is so mediocre yet part of the same continuity, as though I'm being punished for watching their mediocre part of the story in order to keep up.

You're in luck: Several behind-the-scenes types confirmed a while back that while Marvel's features are clearly part of SHIELD's continuity, the show does not exist with regard to the films. For example, Coulson stayed dead so far as any of the movies are concerned. The film people are embarrassed by the television department's output, while the TV people are envious of the feature division's resources -- such as their access to sets other than non-descript hallways. Apparently, the ABC shows were only developed by Disney as a way to generate more profit while keeping their hooks in Joss Whedon back when they still wanted him. That said, this does not apply to the Netflix series, which are part of the film universe.

That was a rumor and it was never confirmed. And Agents of SHIELD has certainly improved a lot since the mediocre first half of season 1, when the rumor of the disconnection came about. After that, it's been pretty obvious that Agents of SHIELD, Agent Carter and the Netflix TV shows are connected to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. For example, the past 3 episodes of SHIELD have feature Powers Boothe in the same role he played on Avengers. Of course, the movies don't have to reference anything happening in any of these shows, but by the time the Infinity War 1 & 2 come out, we will most likely see many, if not all of the TV characters show up in the films in the same roles from the TV show.

[Ribs]

What *I've heard* (and believe) is that Kevin Feige and the main Marvel staff involved in the movies generally do not like that there are TV shows and think it lessens the importance of the big events of the movies. This applies to the Netflix stuff as well (and is why Netflix has yet to announce it's second round of shows for Marvel despite all the acclaim and apparent success; Netflix is trying to get a Cumberbatch of a Johansonn to appear but they don't want that). So I don't think they'll be putting any TV characters other than maybe Clark Gregg in the movies at all. There *could* maybe be a bigger star coming to the TV show other than the rather dull line-up so far (Lady Sif! Samuel L. Jackson for two minutes! Cobie Smulders!) but it'd require some pretty crazy good reasoning on one side's part for it to actually happen.

[hanshotfirst1138]

It bugs me that Agents of SHIELD is so mediocre yet part of the same continuity, as though I'm being punished for watching their mediocre part of the story in order to keep up.

You're in luck: Several behind-the-scenes types confirmed a while back that while Marvel's features are clearly part of SHIELD's continuity, the show does not exist with regard to the films. For example, Coulson stayed dead so far as any of the movies are concerned. The film people are embarrassed by the television department's output, while the TV people are envious of the feature division's resources -- such as their access to sets other than non-descript hallways. Apparently, the ABC shows were only developed by Disney as a way to generate more profit while keeping their hooks in Joss Whedon back when they still wanted him. That said, this does not apply to the Netflix series, which are part of the film universe.

I think it's just a case of the tail vs. the dog. The main features are where the real money is. They might put in some cool references (There's an AOS episode which ties in with the scepter in AOU), but the tail is never going to wag the dog an they're never going to make something in the movies contingent on the shows like they do vice versa.

[RossyG]

I'd much rather watch Arrow, the Flash and Agents of SHIELD over any of the DC or Marvel films.

[starmanof51]

For what little its worth, I'm pretty much with you Captveg. In fact I'm more interested in seeing where this goes than whatever Marvel may be planning (at least as far as "team" stuff goes). I'm surprised the studio agreed for the overarching approach to be this grimdark though. I can take my little kids to Avengers, but I don't see myself doing it for proto-Justice League.

[Murdoch]

It's always funny to me to see the ridiculous hate or love trailers involving superheroes get. This seems to have more interesting pathos than most of the blockbusters being churned out lately with the Batman/Superman rivalry and that's enough to get me interested. I liked Man of Steel pretty well and think these big budget superhero movies are exactly the kind of movie Snyder's mentality is fit to tackle (Watchmen excepted). Eisenberg looks exceptionally awful however and I'll probably come away from this only remembering him hamming it up.

[flyonthewall2983]

First trailer.

[Ribs]

Ah neat, so they're not being subtle about the whole literally-only-greenlit-because-guardians-of-the-galaxy-was-succesful thing.

[Luke M]

I still like Margot Robbie but not much else.

This, Deadpool, Superman/Batman, new X-Men, and the new Captain America are all so incredibly uninspiring.

At least there's Daredevil.

[SpiderBaby]

I thought when Margot was hired, everyone assumed that 'The Wolf of Wall Street' accent was coming too (which matched perfectly with the signature Harley voice from the 90s cartoon). Weird they didn't go that route.

[thirtyframesasecond]

I saw the Deadpool trailer the other day. I don't like Ryan Reynolds anyway but when he's playing a smug wisecracking asshat?

[captveg]

I'm the first to admit these films are not for everyone. I happen to be a big fan of what the last ten years especially have brought us in regards to comic book films, but even the best of them are still formulaic and mostly played safe to be as populist as possible. And I can't argue much against that approach, since they've been doing that so well while also pleasing the majority of comic book readers who get incredibly deep into these characters and worlds.

So right now you got:

1. The very successful Marvel Universe, which are centered on heroes that are to be cheered for despite their inner flaws, while they provide one-liners between the action spectacle.

2. The Fox X-Men Series, which continues to explore that comic's themes of diversity through action tropes rather well. (Deadpool as a side story is an irreverent meta-textual self-deprecation of comic films, just like his comic is to all comic books)

3. And you have the burgeoning DC films series (my personal favorite characters), that are taking the more mythical, grandeur approach in their characters, both heroes and villains. DC heroes are morally grounded but have a far more menacing external threat in their far better villains rogue gallery (which is why they can attempt a film like Suicide Squad). These new films won't be as high-minded as the Nolan Batman films, but they'll be less snarky than the MCU films. Batman v Superman is the comic equivalent to Clash of the Titans in (hopefully) the best of sense.

It is the age of wonders for comic book superheroes on the big screen. Here's hoping we don't bottom out with a Superman IV or a Batman & Robin anytime soon.