Marvel's movies vs DC's.

[Gemini]

But that would mean you'd have to exclude Tim Burton's Batman and Richard Donner's Superman (which, along with Spider-Man and X-Men, seem to reaffirm Jon Favreau's assertion that comic franchises can only feasibly sustain two films). Punisher, I think, came out after Blade. And Nick Fury/Hulk were all TV-budget movies, and probably don't belong in the same category for that reason.

the Punisher movie I'm talking about came out in the 80's

I meant comparing Donner and Burton's movies to today's films is kindof an apple and oranges thing

and plus those movies kinda cancel themselves out with Superman 3 & 4, and .....well.....Joel Schumaker

 

[Zombipanda]

I meant comparing Donner and Burton's movies to today's films is kindof an apple and oranges thing

Not terribly. They're entirely different films, but they are still indicative of how well each company treats their franchises in film form.

and plus those movies kinda cancel themselves out with Superman 3 & 4, and .....well.....Joel Schumaker

Superman and Batman are still good movies, regardless of what came after.

 

[Gemini]

Not terribly. They're entirely different films, but they are still indicative of how well each company treats their franchises in film form.

they are indicitive of how well each company can treat their franchises in film form.

because they were the same companies that let Superman 3&4, hired Joel Schumaker, and felt that Supergirl and Steel movies were neccesary.

 

[Gothamite]

I'd consider Spider-Man and X2 to be two of the greatest movies ever made for many reasons, and probably better than Superman: The Movie and Batman(also two of the greatest movies ever).

Spider-Man 2 and X-Men 2 are so far away from being in my favourite movies ever, it's not even funny. Spider-Man 2 is a sad rehash of the first film and X-Men 2 is just an action-packed road-trip movie that lacks the emotional punch the first (and the third, even though it probably wasn't as good) had.

The problem with DC's argument is that although they've had some great Superman and Batman films in the past, in "the new generation" of superhero movies(which Marvel started), they've had two films total, one of which was brilliant and the other a sad mess that didn't even make enough money to guarantee a sequel, let alone guarantee one three days after it hits theaters which Marvel's been able to pull off half a dozen times.

At the very least, Superman Returns tried to enhance and further the genre from just being slam bang action, a film-making style to which every last damn Marvel movie (with the exception of X-Men 1) has prostituted itself.

There may be more Marvel movies, but it still doesn't change the fact that a handful of DC movies have had better reactions from people than any of the Marvel movies. I've met more than ten people who've listed V For Vendetta and Batman Begins as two of their favourite films and every time I've watched either film with anyone, they were always completely speechless at the end.

I'll admit that Superman and Batman 1989 are slightly dated to today's audiences, but I've never met anyone who didn't enjoy either more than stuff like Spider-Man.

However, whenever I watch any of the Marvel movies with anyone, it's either "Well that sucked," or "That was fun. Let's get something to eat."

Marvel's had at least 7 great, widely acclaimed and successful films so far and they've still got the untapped well of Iron Man sequels and Captain America/The Avengers. DC has Batman, Superman(if they can get their **** back together, only took them about two decades last time), and the shakey possibility of a Justice League movie and maybe the Flash. After that.... what? Does anybody really still expect a three-film long Wonder Woman or Green Lantern franchise to happen?

Green Lantern (if it happens) has just as much chance of being as good as Iron Man was. Plus, DC have a ton of back catalogue characters they could make into movies.

In this 'era' of superhero movies, Marvel is producing more films at a more consistent rate, but there's nothing to say that DC won't bounce back and make a ton of movies. And even if they don't and they continue to make two or three movies every decade, I couldn't care less because they've proven that their business is in making great films and not fun comic book movies.

 

[Joe Kalicki]

Catwoman is better than Constantine and Superman Returns is better than any other Superman movie. Superman II is terrible.

 

[SSJmole]

I think the line has to be drawn based on which "universe" the movies are derived from. Movies from the Vertigo imprint don't count, because they stand on the value of the merit of one to a handful of small creators, rather on the collected continuity of years and years of mish-mash storytelling. We should stick to franchises that stand in the "DC Universe" or "Marvel Universe" proper.

I don't. If it's a DC owned comic in any way e.g Vertigo like you mentioned I still think it counts as DC.

 

[ProjectX2]

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/WB-May-Copy-Marvel-s-Superhero-Plan-9482.html

This is silly. This thing works for Marvel characters (well, in theory, we don't have that much evidence yet) because the Marvel Universe was designed as a universe - Spider-Man, X-Men, Hulk, FF, Avengers etc. all exist together. The DC Universe is the complete opposite. All the characters were created by different people and have been forced into the same universe. These characters weren't designed to interact.

I am against the idea of putting a Silver Age retro Superman with a dark, realistic Batman with whatever happens to those Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern and Justice League movies.

 

[Random]

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/WB-May-Copy-Marvel-s-Superhero-Plan-9482.html

This is silly. This thing works for Marvel characters (well, in theory, we don't have that much evidence yet) because the Marvel Universe was designed as a universe - Spider-Man, X-Men, Hulk, FF, Avengers etc. all exist together. The DC Universe is the complete opposite. All the characters were created by different people and have been forced into the same universe. These characters weren't designed to interact.

I am against the idea of putting a Silver Age retro Superman with a dark, realistic Batman with whatever happens to those Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern and Justice League movies.

I honestly think you could have Nolan's Batman along side other characters like Routh Superman. You just have to keep the rest of it pretty grounded in reality. I can definitely picture Wayne going to Fox for new weapons he's been developing for metahuman enemies, stuff that would kill a regular human. And I picture him providing more back up to the league, dealing out strategies and helping out, but not flat out fighting someone Superman has trouble with.

It can be done.

 

[The Overlord]

Spider-Man 2 and X-Men 2 are so far away from being in my favourite movies ever, it's not even funny. Spider-Man 2 is a sad rehash of the first film and X-Men 2 is just an action-packed road-trip movie that lacks the emotional punch the first (and the third, even though it probably wasn't as good) had.



At the very least, Superman Returns tried to enhance and further the genre from just being slam bang action, a film-making style to which every last damn Marvel movie (with the exception of X-Men 1) has prostituted itself.

There may be more Marvel movies, but it still doesn't change the fact that a handful of DC movies have had better reactions from people than any of the Marvel movies. I've met more than ten people who've listed V For Vendetta and Batman Begins as two of their favourite films and every time I've watched either film with anyone, they were always completely speechless at the end.

I'll admit that Superman and Batman 1989 are slightly dated to today's audiences, but I've never met anyone who didn't enjoy either more than stuff like Spider-Man.

However, whenever I watch any of the Marvel movies with anyone, it's either "Well that sucked," or "That was fun. Let's get something to eat."



Green Lantern (if it happens) has just as much chance of being as good as Iron Man was. Plus, DC have a ton of back catalogue characters they could make into movies.

In this 'era' of superhero movies, Marvel is producing more films at a more consistent rate, but there's nothing to say that DC won't bounce back and make a ton of movies. And even if they don't and they continue to make two or three movies every decade, I couldn't care less because they've proven that their business is in making great films and not fun comic book movies.

I like the first Superman movie, but it hasn't aged well, you have to put in the prism of time to enjoy it.

First Superman returns did nothing to "enhance and further" the genre,
because it was boring, prentious drek and lot of movie critics, including Ebert agree with me. i can't beleive you say Spider-man 2 is just a rehash of the first one, when Superman returns is such a rehash of the first movie it isn't funny.

And DC has barely been ground breaking in regards to films in recent years, besides batman begins, they haven't taken any real chances, all do is make Batman and Superman movies, all this time and they haven't even started a
Wonder Woman or Flash movie.

Plus DC has had way bigger stinkers than marvel, sure the FF movies are bad, but they will never be as bad as batman and robin.

 

[Gothamite]

First Superman returns did nothing to "enhance and further" the genre,
because it was boring, prentious drek and lot of movie critics, including Ebert agree with me. i can't beleive you say Spider-man 2 is just a rehash of the first one, when Superman returns is such a rehash of the first movie it isn't funny.

Superman Returns was a character drama that focused on characters first and action second. The only character drama in Spider-Man 2 was soap opera dialogue and lame "believe in yourself" plots.

And DC has barely been ground breaking in regards to films in recent years, besides batman begins, they haven't taken any real chances, all do is make Batman and Superman movies, all this time and they haven't even started a
Wonder Woman or Flash movie.

V for Vendetta and A History of Violence.

Plus DC has had way bigger stinkers than marvel, sure the FF movies are bad, but they will never be as bad as batman and robin.

DC's Bad Bunch: Batman & Robin, Superman IV, Steel, Catwoman

Marvel's Sad Sacks: Daredevil (if we're basing it on critics' opinions, which you seem happy enough to do), Elektra, Blade Trinity, Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3, Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four 2, Ghost Rider, The *shudders* Original Fantastic 4 movie,

At least DC's movies are so atrocious that they are learning experiences. Marvel's bad films are just mediocre snooze-fests that will probably make enough money to profit, but no one's really going to learn from their mistakes.

 

[SSJmole]

DC's Bad Bunch: Batman & Robin, Superman IV, Steel, Catwoman

Marvel's Sad Sacks: Daredevil (if we're basing it on critics' opinions, which you seem happy enough to do), Elektra, Blade Trinity, Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3, Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four 2, Ghost Rider, The *shudders* Original Fantastic 4 movie,

At least DC's movies are so atrocious that they are learning experiences. Marvel's bad films are just mediocre snooze-fests that will probably make enough money to profit, but no one's really going to learn from their mistakes.

wouldn't Superman III and Superman returns also be on DC's bad list?

 

[Gothamite]

wouldn't Superman III and Superman returns also be on DC's bad list?

Certainly not Superman Returns. Roger Ebert and apparently you didn't like it. It has an awful lot of fans and did considerably better in Rotten Tomatoes (which is a compilation of all of your devoted reviewers' opinions and thus the most fair opinion of the film) than the Incredible Hulk did.

 

[SSJmole]

Certainly not Superman Returns. Roger Ebert and apparently you didn't like it. It has an awful lot of fans and did considerably better in Rotten Tomatoes (which is a compilation of all of your devoted reviewers' opinions and thus the most fair opinion of the film) than the Incredible Hulk did.

Rotten Tomatoes does not make a film good I've mentioned that before. No offence but I'm starting think a lot on here who use the "Rotten Tomatoes" defence don't post about a film unless they have seen that "Rotten Tomatoes" agrees with them, which is just the saddest thing of all.

 

[Gothamite]

Rotten Tomatoes does not make a film good I've mentioned that before. No offence but I'm starting think a lot on here who use the "Rotten Tomatoes" defence don't post about a film unless they have seen that "Rotten Tomatoes" agrees with them, which is just the saddest thing of all.

??!?!?!

You're arguing that the general consensus is that Superman Returns is bad! Rotten Tomatoes is the most general of all consensi and it claims that it's not! What better argument is there?

And the only reason I use the 'Rotten Tomatoes' argument is because whoever I was just arguing with used the 'Roger Ebert' argument, which is flabbergastingly overused.

Unless you go out and do a survey on the street and get 60 people who really can't stand Superman Returns, it doesn't deserve a place on DC's bad list.

 

[The Overlord]

Superman Returns was a character drama that focused on characters first and action second. The only character drama in Spider-Man 2 was soap opera dialogue and lame "believe in yourself" plots..

Yes deadbeat Dad superman is such great character work, retarded Lex and Lois is such great character work. As a character study its awful.

Not mention Superman returns was a greater rehash than Spider-man 2. Far greater.

V for Vendetta and A History of Violence. ..

Vertigo doesn't count.

Anything based on main stream dC heroes, who aren't Superman or Batman?

DC's Bad Bunch: Batman & Robin, Superman IV, Steel, Catwoman

Marvel's Sad Sacks: Daredevil (if we're basing it on critics' opinions, which you seem happy enough to do), Elektra, Blade Trinity, Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3, Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four 2, Ghost Rider, The *shudders* Original Fantastic 4 movie,

At least DC's movies are so atrocious that they are learning experiences. Marvel's bad films are just mediocre snooze-fests that will probably make enough money to profit, but no one's really going to learn from their mistakes.

Yes because Iron Man is a snooze fest. :roll:

Also you forget superman 3 and supergirl, sure marvel has more bad movies, but that's because they make more movies peroid, at least marvel takes more chances.

Plus you are confuding sub par with god awful, the first Hulk movie was sub par, Batman and robin was god awful. Compare those movies on the tomatoe rating and tell me which scores higher.

Rotten Tomatoes does not make a film good I've mentioned that before. No offence but I'm starting think a lot on here who use the "Rotten Tomatoes" defence don't post about a film unless they have seen that "Rotten Tomatoes" agrees with them, which is just the saddest thing of all.

So your opinion matters more than the majority of film critics?

 

[SSJmole]

??!?!?!

You're arguing that the general consensus is that Superman Returns is bad! Rotten Tomatoes is the most general of all consensi! It's just fact!

No I'm arguing that Rotten Tomatoes is not FACT. It's group of opinions. E.g Batman begins gets 84 % yet Spy Kids gets 93% so going by your logic of using Rotten Tomatoes it would be a fact that Spy Kids is a better movie than batman begins ? It's not


The site is not fact. My point was people need their own opinions instead of having to use the "Rotten Tomatoes" defence like that's the reason they rate a film.

 

[Gothamite]

No I'm arguing that Rotten Tomatoes is not FACT. It's group of opinions. E.g Batman begins gets 84 % yet Spy Kids gets 93% so going by your logic of using Rotten Tomatoes it would be a fact that Spy Kids is a better movie than batman begins ? It's not

Of course it's a group of opinions! A group of well-educated, well-articulated opinions! How else is it possible to class a film as 'good' or 'bad' to such an extent that you can place it in an almighty 'list' that everyone should agree with?

 

[SSJmole]

So your opinion matters more than the majority of film critics?

No. My opinion matters more to me when I'm deciding to watch something or not. But i'm talking about looking at something objectively.



E.g I like Power rangers still, I like the Masters of the universe film, I like Hannah Montana. But I can say it's all bad and point out flaws in all of them.



The way I would determine a film like superman returns is to look at the film it's self. Look at the plot holes , look at the acting , look at the direction. If there is a lot of plot holes , bad acting and bad directing then the film is bad.

 

[Gothamite]

The way I would determine a film like superman returns is to look at the film it's self. Look at the plot holes , look at the acting , look at the direction. If there is a lot of plot holes , bad acting and bad directing then the film is bad.

The bad acting and bad directiON is entirely based on your opinion. You haven't given me one solid reason other than that as to why it should go in DC's 'bad list'.

 

[Random]

Vertigo doesn't count.

Anything based on main stream dC heroes, who aren't Superman or Batman?

And nothing based on a one shot, and only movies made in the past ten years and have a budget over 10 million...

No I'm arguing that Rotten Tomatoes is not FACT. It's group of opinions. E.g Batman begins gets 84 % yet Spy Kids gets 93% so going by your logic of using Rotten Tomatoes it would be a fact that Spy Kids is a better movie than batman begins ? It's not

Rotten Tomatoes is made by a movie by movie basis, and are not meant to be compared. the people that went to see Batman Begins are not the same people who went to see Spy kids. It's meant to show how the audience thought of that particular movie. Which means that the majority of the audience that went to see Returns saw it as a positive experience

The site is not fact. My point was people need their own opinions instead of having to use the "Rotten Tomatoes" defense like that's the reason they rate a film.

He was citing it as a source of a large consensus supporting his claims that it shouldn't be on the bad movie list. He is backing up his claim with data, all you're doing is spouting out your own opinion like its fact.

SCIENCE!