Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

DC and Fox's movie universes basically just started. Ones based on Transformers, Ghostbusters, Universal Monsters, Valiant and others are on the way as well.

How well do they think each will do?

Which could fail and which could succeed?

Will any come remotely close to matching Marvel's success?

I think the only "universe" that has a chance to catch Marvel is DC. I just feel they need to ditch Snyder and go for someone that gets the characters.

They dont need to "catch" Marvel to be successful. They can be successful as long as they dont rush like if its some kind of a race.
As long as the studios making these movies take their time and get people to make these movies that care about the source material and characters, they should be fine.

The #1 movieverse killer in having a successful movie-verse is rushing.
You cant have your cake without putting in time and effort.

Also trying to make/force a cinematic universes just because Marvel had success with it or because thats the "in" thing to do is dumb.
Jumping on the hype train for quick cash out is just as bad as rushing.

I believe one day image comics will get pulled into the fray and surpass DC by a mile with marvel well ahead of it only

Originally posted by Inhuman
I dont think any need to "catch" Marvel to be successful. They can be successful as long as they dont rush like if its some kind of race


Agreed. They need to stop trying to "catch up". And just focus on making good movies with different directors, and letting their shared Universe grow organically.

Originally posted by Inhuman
They dont need to "catch" Marvel to be successful. Of course not, but he asked that specific question. Also, "Catching" Marvel doesn't necessarily mean rush anyway. I take it to mean get a well loved franchise that makes tons of money. DC looks like it's at least on pace to get half of that atm. But, as you said, them rushing has really hurt them so far. They need to chill out a bit and focus on the CHARACTERS. That's the one thing that Marvel has done near perfectly. Their casting has been spot on and they take the time in their movies to make you care about the characters. Snyder doesn't do that; and it's why he needs to go.

Originally posted by CPT Space Bomb
Of course not, but he asked that specific question. Also, "Catching" Marvel doesn't necessarily mean rush anyway. I take it to mean get a well loved franchise that makes tons of money. DC looks like it's at least on pace to get half of that atm. But, as you said, them rushing has really hurt them so far. They need to chill out a bit and focus on the CHARACTERS. That's the one thing that Marvel has done near perfectly. Their casting has been spot on and they take the time in their movies to make you care about the characters. Snyder doesn't do that; and it's why he needs to go.

Yeah , forgot to add casting. I seriously dont know how or why some of the people in the DCU got cast in their roles.

People forget that even Marvel has had to can a few things. RDJ's cameo in The Incredible Hulk may as well not have happened for all the impact it had and they lost Norton before Avengers. They've also met with challenges of multiple hands on each property. For example, Thor didn't seem to interest Whedon so he gets shafted in the Avengers. AoU, despite not being a particularly great movie in my eyes, is fascinating to watch due to how it fits in the shared universe.

Marvel is not infallible but they are more aware of what makes crossover's work. Seeing Batfleck fight Supes isn't nearly as awesome as seeing IM vs Thor because we can't appreciate how different they are. They were both "made" by the same director in their first/second movies lol. Imagine if Freddy vs Jason was the second Friday the 13th film and a "pilot" for NoES. I mean who cares?

Marvel has only been successful because it has been patient and even if every single movie from here on out bombed(which I doubt) that patience has changed the landscape of cinema for a time. Which is endlessly impressive.

Originally posted by AuraAngel
Marvel has only been successful because it has been patient and even if every single movie from here on out bombed(which I doubt) that patience has changed the landscape of cinema for a time. Which is endlessly impressive. Hardly. Marvel has been patient, yes; but that's FAR from the only reason they're successful. As I said, they focus more on the Characters than anything else. Everything from casting to letting the stories revolve around them in pretty much all their movies....It's why a story like Ant-Man works so well. Marvel makes you enjoy spending time with it's heroes. Everything else kinda falls into place after that.

The building blocks for the DCU (Batman and Superman) should have been handled with that same amount of care. They weren't. This is one reason fans aren't being as forgiving to this as they are some of Marvel's movies.

Originally posted by Inhuman
They dont need to "catch" Marvel to be successful. They can be successful as long as they dont rush like if its some kind of a race.
As long as the studios making these movies take their time and get people to make these movies that care about the source material and characters, they should be fine.

The #1 movieverse killer in having a successful movie-verse is rushing.
You cant have your cake without putting in time and effort.

Also trying to make/force a cinematic universes just because Marvel had success with it or because thats the "in" thing to do is dumb.
Jumping on the hype train for quick cash out is just as bad as rushing.


good words

It would be interesting if there were non-comic/fantasy cinematic universes.


something like 'This is 40' and 'Knocked Up' are connected, but it would be cool if there were a dramatic film that existed in the same universe as a comedy.

All the Tarantino films are in the same universe

yeah, but not really. I'm aware of what he's said about his films, but those things loosely make sense. very loosely. I'm talking Quan's butthole, loose.

Originally posted by marwash22
yeah, but not really. I'm aware of what he's said about his films, but those things loosely make sense. very loosely. I'm talking Quan's butthole, loose. Hush.

I know Valiant has a chance to be a good Cinematic Universes but i doubt it would be as big & and successfully as the Marvel one.

I cant see Image or Valiant ever becoming as popular as Marvel or DC in the cinematic world. Their characters just arent popular enough.

Originally posted by AuraAngel
For example, Thor didn't seem to interest Whedon so he gets shafted in the Avengers.


I thought Thor has some of the coolest scenes in Avengers1.

But he was shafted bad in AOU.

Originally posted by Darth Thor


But he was shafted bad in AOU.

Most likely he had other commitments & needed to be written out.

It's not always as black & white as the director "hating" the character & deliberately giving him a minor part.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Most likely he had other commitments & needed to be written out.

It's not always as black & white as the director "hating" the character & deliberately giving him a minor part. No, Thor has been shafted in every movie since Thor 1. He actually almost resembled the God of Thunder in his first solo outing. Since then, they've completely depowered him (with a few exceptions). He (along with Hulk) have the 2 biggest nerfs of anyone in the MCU.

Originally posted by marwash22
yeah, but not really. I'm aware of what he's said about his films, but those things loosely make sense. very loosely. I'm talking Quan's butthole, loose.

IMO, Tarantino's film-verse doesn't have the same level of incontinence as that sloppy disaster.