Originally posted by wakkawakkawakkaMany people know who Batman and Superman are. They don't need to establish anything as the general public knows who they are. Marvel didn't start out with the Avengers but have firmly established Ironman, Thor, and Captain America as well. Dc is doing what it has done in the past focusing on just a few. The only reason they are attempting this is due to marvels success.
What the heck are you talking about quan? Also hasn't Captain Marvel( I don't care about legal issues that's his name) received a lot of exposure over the past 3 years? Besides why would DC put Billy on the big screen when they haven't properly established their title characters?
Originally posted by quanchi112
Many people know who Batman and Superman are. They don't need to establish anything as the general public knows who they are. Marvel didn't start out with the Avengers but have firmly established Ironman, Thor, and Captain America as well. Dc is doing what it has done in the past focusing on just a few. The only reason they are attempting this is due to marvels success.
Considering the last well received Superman movie was made back in 1980 and the Nolan trilogy is finished, I'd say that yeah Superman and Batman both needed to be firmly established in DC's movie continuity. Sure Avengers might seem like a no brainer now but putting B list superheroes in the spotlight and expecting success was a hell of a risk.
Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
Considering the last well received Superman movie was made back in 1980 and the Nolan trilogy is finished, I'd say that yeah Superman and Batman both needed to be firmly established in DC's movie continuity. Sure Avengers might seem like a no brainer now but putting B list superheroes in the spotlight and expecting success was a hell of a risk.
That's the problem with Warner Bros, their inability to take risks to promote their DC properties.
A reason DC fans need to thank marvel ~ marvel's success has finally motivated DC execs to get off their asses and invest in their characters.
This DC/Marvel competition is good for fans of both because it forces the companies to put out their best product. I hope MoS 2 and Avengers 2 are great movies.
Originally posted by Firefly218
That's the problem with Warner Bros, their inability to take risks to promote their DC properties.A reason DC fans need to thank marvel ~ marvel's success has finally motivated DC execs to get off their asses and invest in their characters.
This DC/Marvel competition is good for fans of both because it forces the companies to put out their best product. I hope MoS 2 and Avengers 2 are great movies.
DC have to establish a canon movie verse for all the characters to be in first and in order to do so they need alluring characters to get butts in seats. Marvel seriously lucked out with Ironman.
Well Marvel should definitely step it up with their small screen endeavors.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Watchmen was actually really good though so it's financial failure was disappointing and probably made WB left wondering what it is they're doing wrong.
Watchmen is one of the best films based on a comic/GN. The marketing for that film was abysmal though, especially considering it's not an IP that was already well known like Superman, Spider-Man, the Hulk etc.
It wasn't much of a failure though, as it made money. Just not a whole lot of it.
Quanchi likes to go on about ' how marvel is better.' But reality is that Marvel is only ahead in the movie game for now. DC has the Nolan trilogy which is better than anything Marvel has ever put out.
DC has better tv shows, cartoons. DC direct-to-video films are far superior. DC has the better lineup of books. I would give Marvel the slight edge in video game for now, because they have had more success in that department longer.
I don't care who is doing better from a financial standpoint, as "making more money" isn't a factor in me liking a film or franchise.
I do think it's great that many comic films are pulling in loads of cash as it means the studios will be more inclined to give us grander comic-based films going forward. ie the success of the prior films lead us to The Avengers being made.
The DC animated films do shit all over the Marvel ones, imo. ie Batman: Under The Red Hood
Originally posted by quanchi112
Disney is the company that does it right.Quit bringing up franchises not owned by Disney who gave idiotic Dc the blueprint on how it is done.
Quit deflecting, Quan.
If you're going to take the time to reply to posts, at least have the decency to actually respond to what's in them.
And stop acting like Iron Man came out in some sort of vacuum. FFS I know you thrive on arguments, but that doesn't mean you have to make stupid ones.
Originally posted by wakkawakkawakkaPeople are aware of Superman and there have been plenty of Superman films since 1980. No, they didn't need to be established again as most people know who they are and don't need to start from the ground up.
Considering the last well received Superman movie was made back in 1980 and the Nolan trilogy is finished, I'd say that yeah Superman and Batman both needed to be firmly established in DC's movie continuity. Sure Avengers might seem like a no brainer now but putting B list superheroes in the spotlight and expecting success was a hell of a risk.
Originally posted by playa1258That is just your opinion. Avengers is better than any Batman film IMO. It made more money which is a fact than any Batman film. 🙂
Quanchi likes to go on about ' how marvel is better.' But reality is that Marvel is only ahead in the movie game for now. DC has the Nolan trilogy which is better than anything Marvel has ever put out.DC has better tv shows, cartoons. DC direct-to-video films are far superior. DC has the better lineup of books. I would give Marvel the slight edge in video game for now, because they have had more success in that department longer.
I disagree but that isn't where the money is it is in the cinematic films which hit the theatre.
Originally posted by -Pr-Ironman and other characters were established in a concerted effort to gain steam. They did as Ironman 3 and Thor 2 both shattered their previous bests.
Quit deflecting, Quan.If you're going to take the time to reply to posts, at least have the decency to actually respond to what's in them.
And stop acting like Iron Man came out in some sort of vacuum. FFS I know you thrive on arguments, but that doesn't mean you have to make stupid ones.
Dc is trying to copy marvels winning formula. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Originally posted by quanchi112
People are aware of Superman and there have been plenty of Superman films since 1980. No, they didn't need to be established again as most people know who they are and don't need to start from the ground up.
If DC wanted a composite movie universe where all of their characters can be in the same movie then yes, DC needs to start from the ground up. Besides Marvel pretty much did the same thing with the Hulk movie so I'm not seeing why its a problem. Also what does this have to do with Captain Marvel?
Originally posted by wakkawakkawakkaMarvel threw another Hulk actor in and just kept things going from the second film. No, dc didn't when it comes to Batman they could just continue things from the Nolan films but they'd rather start over again.
If DC wanted a composite movie universe where all of their characters can be in the same movie then yes, DC needs to start from the ground up. Besides Marvel pretty much did the same thing with the Hulk movie so I'm not seeing why its a problem. Also what does this have to do with Captain Marvel?
Marvel has been passed over for another go round with Superman. Read the article.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Marvel threw another Hulk actor in and just kept things going from the second film. No, dc didn't when it comes to Batman they could just continue things from the Nolan films but they'd rather start over again.Marvel has been passed over for another go round with Superman. Read the article.
Uh...at the most "the Incredible Hulk" was a loose continuation of Ang Lee's Hulk so yeah Marvel did the same thing. Not when both Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale are done with it so once again Batman has to be redone.
Let me rephrase...what does you're Marvel fan-boying have to do with Shazam? Seems to me you just went out of your way to take a shot at DC.
Originally posted by wakkawakkawakkaIt was a continuation. No, it doesn't it can be continued with a different actor they own the rights.
Uh...at the most "the Incredible Hulk" was a loose continuation of Ang Lee's Hulk so yeah Marvel did the same thing. Not when both Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale are done with it so once again Batman has to be redone.Let me rephrase...what does you're Marvel fan-boying have to do with Shazam? Seems to me you just went out of your way to take a shot at DC.
It is simple. Marvel is doing it the correct way and dc keep repeating the same mistakes of the past.
Originally posted by quanchi112
It was a continuation. No, it doesn't it can be continued with a different actor they own the rights.It is simple. Marvel is doing it the correct way and dc keep repeating the same mistakes of the past.
It has Banner in South America, that's about it. I'm not a copyright-buff but I'm pretty sure DC can't just use Nolan's Batman in an adaptation w/o his permission.
So you admit to picking on DC for no reason right?