Why has Warner Bros failed w/DC Comics where as Disney has succeeded with Marvel?

[JEDI]

both Warner Bros (Bugs Bunny) and Disney (Mickey Mouse) are no strangers to animation.

so why has Warner Bros failed to capitalize with it's DC movies? (Batman is the only true success.)
While Marvel has hit it big.

 

[Ns1]

DC is gonna start. Justice League, 2015-2025. No doubt Disney/Marvel is currently doing it better though.

 

[IronWing]

Warner Brothers turns them all into dark, brooding characters in dark, brooding worlds. The movies are depressing. The early Batman movies and the Superman movies were awful. The Batman movies were filmed in a manner to suggest that the producers were pressed for cash and decided to skimp on the light bill. Super heroes should be a bit more fun.

 

[Gooberlx2]

I dunno. I always felt that except for Batman, DC heroes are too campy and overpowered compared to Marvel.

 

[ElFenix]

superman is a shitty character.

 

[Ancalagon44]

The late 70's Superman movie with Christopher Reeve was great because it was inspiring and heroic. That music just fitted perfectly to what I think Superman is supposed to represent - good values and the triumph over evil.

The latest movie was depressing, dark and filled with action scenes that were too long and actually out of place. Scenes with Jor El and Kent Sr were good, but otherwise it was bad.

 

[drebo]

Marvel has better super heroes and more interesting villains.

 

[Skel]

Marvel created their own studio to focus on their IP. That allowed them to use what they already knew worked. Most other studios in Hollywood allow directors and producers (and many actors) to leave their mark on movies, which Marvel refused to allow. They knew their IP was solid and had no doubt it would work. By the time Disney got a hold of them Marvel had already proven they knew what they were doing. No need to mess with that. DC on the other hand was already owned by WB and weren't able to do the same. That's why you have a Batman that has different versions depending on who's making them. It's also why you have shows that have the characters but refuse to allow them to be Super heroes. It's only after seeing the success that Marvel has had with Superheroes that the WB is moving towards using the IP like the comics. Sadly, they're still allowing the Hollywood types to put their marks on it, so expect more dark and depressing 'gritty' stuff that won't align well.

 

[Bateluer]

Marvel created their own studio to focus on their IP. That allowed them to use what they already knew worked. Most other studios in Hollywood allow directors and producers (and many actors) to leave their mark on movies, which Marvel refused to allow. They knew their IP was solid and had no doubt it would work. By the time Disney got a hold of them Marvel had already proven they knew what they were doing. No need to mess with that. DC on the other hand was already owned by WB and weren't able to do the same. That's why you have a Batman that has different versions depending on who's making them. It's also why you have shows that have the characters but refuse to allow them to be Super heroes. It's only after seeing the success that Marvel has had with Superheroes that the WB is moving towards using the IP like the comics. Sadly, they're still allowing the Hollywood types to put their marks on it, so expect more dark and depressing 'gritty' stuff that won't align well.

To be fair, there are plenty of comic book IPs that are intended to be dark and must be made dark and gritty if they are to be true to their source material. Dredd, for example. The 90s Judge Dredd movie sucked, Dredd 3D was damn good.

DC's movies aren't bad because they're dark and gritty, they're just bad movies. They don't keep the spirit of the source material, they blatantly ignore it in some cases. They chuck plot development for the sake of cool explosions and effects. Humor is ignored.

The upcoming DC movies look to be impressively bad. in Dawn of Justice, we have a Superman sequel staring Batman, played by Ben Affleck; one of the worst possible casting decisions. A skinny stick playing Wonder Woman whose other acting credentials are Tough Girl #37 in Fast and Furious. The leadership is just throwing characters at this movie.

We at least get good animated DC flicks, most of the time. And the live action Arrow is damn good, and the upcoming Flash looks pretty awesome too. But their big screen flicks are just big budget special effects demonstrations.

 

[Ancalagon44]

We at least get good animated DC flicks, most of the time. And the live action Arrow is damn good, and the upcoming Flash looks pretty awesome too. But their big screen flicks are just big budget special effects demonstrations.

That at least is true - animated DC films are great.

But other than Batman Begins and Dark Knight, all other DC movies have been terrible. I think Skel is right about Marvel exerting control over the properties that it owns, and it works well for them.

Slightly off topic, did anyone else think that Dark Knight Rises was nowhere near as good as it could or should have been?

 

[Legios]

In my mind Marvel always was better than DC from a comics standpoint. Therefore the source material is/was better. DC owned the "golden" age while Marvel has stayed relevant.

 

[vi edit]

Because Stan Lee is awesome.

 

[soulcougher73]

DC heroes are just more boring

 

[TheSlamma]

Cause DC only has 2 things going for them, Batman and some of their graphics novels (Alan Moore's especially) and we can take only so many Batman reboots.

 

[Red Storm]

I actually prefer DC to Marvel, but that's because the only superhero that was ever interesting to me is Batman because he's just a human with ridiculous skill/talents, not a human (or alien) who fell into some radioactive waste and gained supernatural powers. Not coincidentally I find the recent Batman trilogy to be the best superhero movies ever done.

 

[SP33Demon]

To be fair, there are plenty of comic book IPs that are intended to be dark and must be made dark and gritty if they are to be true to their source material. Dredd, for example. The 90s Judge Dredd movie sucked, Dredd 3D was damn good.

DC's movies aren't bad because they're dark and gritty, they're just bad movies. They don't keep the spirit of the source material, they blatantly ignore it in some cases. They chuck plot development for the sake of cool explosions and effects. Humor is ignored.

The upcoming DC movies look to be impressively bad. in Dawn of Justice, we have a Superman sequel staring Batman, played by Ben Affleck; one of the worst possible casting decisions. A skinny stick playing Wonder Woman whose other acting credentials are Tough Girl #37 in Fast and Furious. The leadership is just throwing characters at this movie.

We at least get good animated DC flicks, most of the time. And the live action Arrow is damn good, and the upcoming Flash looks pretty awesome too. But their big screen flicks are just big budget special effects demonstrations.

Good post. And I agree with others, DC's superheroes really aren't that good outside of Batman. Let's go through the Justice League. Green Lantern? The suck. Wonder Woman? lol. The Flash? Marvel already beat them to the punch with Quicksilver. Cyborg? Iron Man way better. Aquaman? The butt of alternative lifestyle jokes although I admit he could have potential if they did it right. Superman? Already messed him up many times over aside from the Reeves' era.

DC needs to start exploring and developing secondary characters like Marvel did or they are just going to get left in the dust. Start with ones like Dick Grayson/Nightwing, Teen Titans, reboot the Spirit and Jonah Hex (which are great characters btw), Suicide Squad-->spin off Barbara Gordon as Batgirl and then disabled Oracle (which I enjoyed), Rorshach of the Watchmen, and Lobo (one of my favs, but would have to be a little satirical like Guardians of the Galaxy). Sandman is in the works which hopefully they don't f up, and Preacher is being made into a TV series (should have done a movie first).

 

[bigrash]

Marvel created their own studio to focus on their IP. That allowed them to use what they already knew worked. Most other studios in Hollywood allow directors and producers (and many actors) to leave their mark on movies, which Marvel refused to allow. They knew their IP was solid and had no doubt it would work. By the time Disney got a hold of them Marvel had already proven they knew what they were doing. No need to mess with that. DC on the other hand was already owned by WB and weren't able to do the same. That's why you have a Batman that has different versions depending on who's making them. It's also why you have shows that have the characters but refuse to allow them to be Super heroes. It's only after seeing the success that Marvel has had with Superheroes that the WB is moving towards using the IP like the comics. Sadly, they're still allowing the Hollywood types to put their marks on it, so expect more dark and depressing 'gritty' stuff that won't align well.

Yup, totally agree.

 

[waggy]

The main issue is that Marvel is developing the movies. When they don't they put out shit like the damn daredevil movie that sucked balls or the Fantastic Four movie that sucked balls.

Once marvel got the IP back they started producing much better movies. They understand how the movie should play out. They are also getting better at it.

That is DC's big issue. Hollywood wanted for years to make another superman movie. The scripts were insane (so was the casting). it damn near destroyed the superman universe.

Also it just doesn't help that DC characters suck balls. Superman? a man that can't die (he goes into hibernation...). a man so strong he can tow planets around, can hear someone calling his name for space. etc etc. a damn boreing guy.

the best is batman. Though he is still fucking overpowered. Though still a comic i buy if the story arc is good. The rest of DC universe? terrible. Though the "color war" was pretty good.

DC heroes are just more boring

no shit. they are overpowered and boring. only good one was batman..and at times he sucks.

Because Stan Lee is awesome.

well duh.

 

[Zee]

DC heroes are just more boring

agreed. green lantern is such a stupid character. Like Daredevil. BUt while daredevil is in the bottom of the Marvel barrel, Green Lantern is DC's champion next to superman and behind batman

 

[bearxor]

I actually prefer DC to Marvel, but that's because the only superhero that was ever interesting to me is Batman because he's just a human with ridiculous skill/talents, not a human (or alien) who fell into some radioactive waste and gained supernatural powers. Not coincidentally I find the recent Batman trilogy to be the best superhero movies ever done.

This is what's central to Marvel's success, I think.

They took Iron Man, which is basically just Batman, and gave him mass appeal. Then they introduced characters in to the world.

It's no coincidence that they're using Batman to jump start the Justice League. People like Batman. They connect with Batman.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Iron Man is not just like Batman. What are you thinking?

The only thing they have similar are that they're both rich guys that use their wealth and intellect to fight.

Otherwise, Iron Man is a larger than life guy who fights with a flashy suit and makes sarcastic remarks/commets.

Batman is a guy who fights in the dark and has withdrawn himself from normal society and is very sneaky.

 

[KeithTalent]

I like the Flash and some of the other DC heroes, but I think it's way too hard to translate a lot of their heroes into movies the general public would actually want to watch.

KT

 

[KeithTalent]

Iron Man is not just like Batman. What are you thinking?

The only thing they have similar are that they're both rich guys that use their wealth and intellect to fight.

Otherwise, Iron Man is a larger than life guy who fights with a flashy suit and makes sarcastic remarks/commets.

Batman is a guy who fights in the dark and has withdrawn himself from normal society and is very sneaky.

Pretty sure he meant because they are both just regular dudes, not superhuman, so us regular people can relate to them a little easier.

KT

 

[HumblePie]

The majority of the main DC heroes "set" characters are either gods or pussies. There are a few here and there that aren't and allow more readers to relate to them. Actually, the original Superman had no weakness. When sales for it started slumping because readers got bored of reading about a character that had no weakness, the writers invented one. Kryptonite! Even then, it's a crappy weakness. From then on out they always had to throw the stupidest weakness at all their "god" characters. Green Latern? Toss a bucket of yellow paint on him! They got a bit better as they picked up why more people were reading Marvel over DC comics, but still the character designers for DC were pretty stupid.

So you have stupid character designers that make characters no one really connects or relates to and then hollywood idiots that take the garbage in from DC and manage to foul it up even more.

And fouling up story lines is WHY Marvel decided to finally make their own movie studio after decades of adamantly saying they wouldn't. Ang Lee's Hulk was the final movie that tanked that ended up being the final straw. At least the fact that it tanked allowed Marvel to reclaim the rights to the movie version of the Hulk. They had already stopped handing out rights to other characters before that movie due to borderline failure movies like Daredevil and others. Marvel realized that bad movies hurt comic book sales and good movies increase comic book sales.

DC/WB never really learned that lesson.

 

[GrumpyMan]

It may be an unfair comparison, but I've always looked at DC as the "Walmart" of comics movies so to speak.