Superman Through the Ages! Forum

The wife and I went to see Rise of the Silver Surfer today and a few weeks ago I saw Spider-Man 3 with the boys.  I have to say, I was never a big Marvel Comics fan (I am more of a DC guy) BUT how does Marvel do it? 

The characterizations are faithful to the comics (well, save for Jessica Alba)... the actors LOOK like the Marvel comic counterparts (in my opinion, Tobey Macguire looks exactly like Steve Ditko's Peter Parker) and the origin stories of the movie counterparts are a little more logical and improved upon, but still faithful.

The DC films?  Why can't Batman LOOK like Batman?  Why does the Joker in the Dark Knight film look like he smeared lipstick all over his face?  Brandon Routh as Superman... well... he looks more like SuperBOY to me.  While DC TALKS about making movies, MArvel is MAKING movies.  What, we have had in the past few years:

3 X-Men movies
3 Spider-Man movies
2 Fantastic Four
1 Hulk (with one on the way)
1 Ghost Rider
1 Punisher
1 Daredevil
That's all I can think of... forget the fact that Iron Man is in the works...

DC? 1 Batman and 1 Superman... and they aren't very faithful adaptaions (to me at least).

I would love to see Green Lantern, Flash, Capt Marvel, JLA, Wonder Woman, etc... but will they ever happen?  Will it be worth it to me to see them?  Will they be familar characters?

Is it that the Marvel Universe translates better?  Is DC too messed up with too many variations of it's characters (while Marvel has kept their characters the "same")

opinions?

David,

I agree the changing "interpretations" of the DC characters "messes" them up, or weakens them. I haven't seen Spidey 3 yet, but I was very impressed with No. 1, and it is definitely the best of all the super-hero films, past or present. Spidey 2 was impressive as well. The "Batman Begins" film was a huge disappointment to me as there wasn't much there that was recognisable as Batman -- apart from the mandatory elements of parents killed and bat-costume. The rest of it was a way-out and wacky interpretation of how Batman may have come to be. It sure didn't come from the comics. Spidey is much more on-track and consistent. While I'm not a big fan of the X-Men films, I can recognise in them (the two I've seen) a simplified and faithful version of the comics I liked in the 80s. The DC super-hero films are not as good, I agree. There's something grounded and earthy about the Marvel characters on film that I can't put my finger on. Don't jump all over me for saying that, as I'm not sure what I mean exactly. Superman and Batman in the films (the recent two) are remote and very detached from their audience and their source material. They're more like gods than the Marvel people, playing out their mythical lives in some distant place, and it feels that way. Imagine if Green Lantern or Captain Marvel came out as films: they would be just as bad or worse. With Superman and Batman, not once did I feel engaged with those characters. I was watching from a long way off. Does that make sense? With Spidey in the films, I was part of his life after five minutes.


As you can tell, I agree with this. It's part of the problem. I have no idea how Superman and Batman did at the box office compared with Marvel films. I am just going purely on how I much I enjoyed or did not enjoy them.

Well, Marvel have certainly been more diligent in pursuing their film careers, and the Spider-Man films have consistently been some of the best superhero films ever. However, I don't think the results are uniformly good: Daredevil was Dire, Hulk was Horrid, Ghost Rider was Ghastly Rubbish and the Fantastic Four was Fairly Foolish. I didn't think the X-Men films were much cop either, but at least they were fairly faithful to the characters. (The Punisher was okay, if you like mindless violence as much as I do.)

On the whole, though, I see your point about Marvel characters translating better to the screen than DC's. I don't really know why: you'd have thought Batman would be easy enough to do once you've come up with the money, but certainly none of the films bear much resemblance to the character I like. Perhaps it is because DC characters have been around longer and are more familiar to the general public, which prompts film directors and producers to "give their personal interpretation" of them - in other words, to miss the point completely?

Incidentally, am I the only person in the universe who would be happy to pay good money to see an Atom movie?

It seems to me that some of the Marvel movies have just done a better job of making the audience care about the characters. Neither Batman Begins or Superman Returns did that for me.

My biggest complaint about Superman Returns is the nonsense with Lois's new beau and the kid. It turned the classic Superman/Lois/Clark triangle into some weird Superman/Lois/Cyclops/kid/Clark hyper-polygon. It was great to see Superman do some heroic stuff (saving a falling plane, getting rid of Luthor's kryptonite island), but it was creepy to see Superman spy and eavesdrop on Lois and whatshisname. And they might as well have left Clark out of the movie.

Marvel's had their share of duds--Daredevil and Hulk come to mind. But at least they are trying. And usually they get the audience interested.

I'd love to see Green Lantern, the Flash, Dr. Fate, the Spectre, Adam Strange, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, and even the Atom. And I think a JLA movie could work, if they kept the number of characters down to the big 5 (Superman, Batman, WW, Flash, and GL) so everyone can have an important part.

In Marvel's case, quantity does not equal quality. Sure, movie companies churn out Marvel superhero movies and while reasonably successful still are not great films. Recent DC movies, for what ever reason, always seem to garner critical acclaim and not the box office revenue Marvel movies accumulate. I checked my cable guide the other day and would you believe Superman Returns received 3.5 stars out of 4?! Somebody fell asleep at the switch.

Batman Begins and Superman Returns, may not adhere to exact comicbook familiarity but neither do Marvel movies. Just ask a Marvel reader. The most recent Marvel flick I viewed was Ghost Rider. This movie changed major elements of Johnny Cage's origin as Ghost Rider. Too me, you simply cannot change certain aspects of an origin too much, otherwise a completely different story is presented. Ghost Rider is a good example of mucking around with what works....

In the end, it's better to chalk every film adaption, no matter the genre, an interpretation and leave it at that. We'll never see a straight up comic adaption on the big screen any sooner than we'll see a novel faithful to the writer's complete intent.

The tread that I find is that Marvel's live action films tend to be better for the most part, but this is only a recent development. DC's animated shows tend to blow away Marvel’s; well that has always the case. DC's characters tend to translate better to animation.

It's funny, I share your feelings about RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER...and I disliked the first film. I wholeheartedly endorse the second one, though. It's the WRATH OF KHAN of comic book movies: it does right where the first movie did wrong by reminding us why we like the characters.

The first FF was weird and "Hollywood" (I half-expected Vin Diesel to bust out) however, RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER has clear signs of being based on the Lee/Kirby comics directly. They got the Silver Surfer down pat: his innocence, his cosmic nature, his reluctance to violence...visually he was astonishing: a chromed out silver gladiator. He looks like a hood ornament on a pimped-out car.

And the Surfer's voice...astonishing. It's the most successful voice to actor casting since Robby Benson was Disney's Beast.

The story borrowed from arguably the best and most shocking of the "classic" FF stories: Doctor Doom stealing the Silver Surfer's powers.

It had Galactus, of a sort...of course they didn't have a guy in purple tights, and I understand this. Some things just wouldn't WORK in a very different medium like film, and they went for something weirder and more cosmic - something that would have shown up on the Filmation STAR TREK animated show.

As for Marvel movies vs. DC movies...both have had their failures and successes, but there just seem to be so many more good Marvel movies because Marvel's failures have been small-scale and invisible (the Doctor Strange flick, the Sci-Fi Channel Nick Fury TV movie where he's played by the Hoff, for instance), whereas DC's failures have been on a colossal, Biblical scale: SUPERMAN III and IV, SUPERGIRL, and BATMAN AND ROBIN. And...oh Christ....CATWOMAN. 'Nuff said. 

There have been many great DC movies, but they too, are as invisible as Marvel's failures: MASK OF THE PHANTASM, the greatest Batman movie ever, perhaps the most accurate and moody of Batman's films where he actually uses (gasp) detective abilities. The Batman movies have all been at best flawed, at worst failures...only if MASK OF THE PHANTASM is ignored.

My feelings on DAREDEVIL have been made clear in another thread. Roy Thomas, incidentally, agrees with me - he mentioned in a documentary he loved the film except for the fact they killed Electra off too quickly.

I enjoyed BATMAN BEGINS very much because it told a film that is only possible with Batman: building the character element by element so he has plausibility. There's a reason for everything. Also, it used Batman's Englehart-era characterization: there's an element of thrillseeking to Batman's job (a release from a very unhappy secret identity that became something he's trapped in), and his motivations are more complicated and noble than just revenge. I love that it introduced an element of travel, one of the more interesting parts of Batman comics instead of chaining him to Gotham by an ankle bracelet, and there was way cool Frank Miller Ninja-stuff!

And something ought to be said for the casting of Batman in BATMAN BEGINS. This is honestly something we've never seen before: a live-action Batman that looks like he could BE Batman.

I know...what a concept, right?

Not a gut-hanging TV joke like Adam West; not friggin' Beetlejuice or the "Iceman." (What are the odds Iceman'd be in a movie telling Chris O'Donnell that he's "dangerous?" All it needed was about 25 shower room scenes and they'd have TOP GUN 1 1/2).

Incidentally, the definitive moment the 89 Batman didn't work for me was when Beetlejuice was confronted by the Joker, and he snaps. It was supposed to be a Sean Penn/Al Pacino-style "caged animal" moment, but instead it looked more like a Saturday Night Live cast member flailing around in a bad Christopher Walken impression.

This is all speculation on my part - I think it could have something to do with the differences between how the two companies relate to the studios.

DC is owned by Warner Brothers, who might just use it as a supply closet which they can mine for movie concepts.  These concepts then get converted into mainstream movies by the Hollywood Movie Types.  DC may have no say or control over what WB does with their properties, and have to sit tight and get as surprised by the movies as the rest of us.

Marvel probably has a completely different relationship with the studios.  Based on the films, it seems like Marvel has final approval over the story, possibly over more.  Does anyone know the details on how this works?  Perhaps Marvel accepts movie bids, or has some degree of creative control since they license out the characters with guidelines or something.

Which reminds me - whatever happened with that "Superman Bible" I heard about a year or two ago?  DC was compiling a book of guidelines to Superman that everyone was supposed to follow.  I wonder if anyone who worked on Superman Returns even knew about it.

I agree with you, Rao.  There is a different relationship between DC and studios and Marvel and studios.

1stly, up until the late 1990s - DC properties were always hugely more successful than Marvel properties on TV and screen.

Now, as we all know, Marvel had some horrible dogs in the early 1990s.  Captain America and the 1st Fantastic 4 movie.  Somewhere I had heard that Marvel just sold the licenses to whomever wanted.  I find it interesting that after Marvel makes a recovery from their bankruptcy - they start making hits.  I'm thinking that the bankruptcy got back Marvel's licenses - and Marvel started being more choosy about their properties.  I notice that Marvel's movies are made by many different studios (Universal, Paramount, etc.)

That's a lot of resource to throw at making a movie.  Each studio has their own cash to throw into development.

This is different from DC it appears.  DC apparently only gets to work with Warner Bros.  So, Warner Bros foots the development bill and frankly they really seem to suck at it for the most part.  This, by the way, goes back as far as the original Superman flick.  Apparently all the money to make the movie was put up by the Salkinds.  It appears that unless you're a hot something name, you just aren't going to get any support from the studio to develop the movie.  That's a very comperably small amount of resource (one studio as opposed to everyone as in Marvel's case) to be used.

So, Marvel simply gets it more on volume - really.  Volume of proposals for many studios, volumes of studios or producers investing to develop, etc.  DC then becomes a bit more like the "red headed step child" of their parent companies - and they'll only get a movie if momma company thinks it is a sure bet.

If DC could market it's properties the way Marvel can, it would be a more interesting field right now.

I agree with all this... I was even so disenchanted as a kid with the Reeve Superman movies (a force shooting out of fingers.. an enlarging S emblem?)

Although the X-Men films were so different from the comics.. looks and continuity-wise... they were still refreshing.  The characterizations were great.

I liked Daredevil, actually... never saw Hulk or some of the others, but love the 2 FF movies (except Jessica Alba is IMHO NOTHING like Lee and Kirby's Sue Storm.  Sue was a liberated and strong woman before women were liberated and strong).  On the whole, though, the Marvel films are just so much BETTER for whatever reason.  The icing on the cake is Stan "the Man" Lee's cameos in the movies I've seen.

For Batman... get rid of the rubber suits... black and dark grey spandex (or whatever) would look very Trevor Von Eeden-ish.  Get some real STYLE in the Bat-films.  Batman is a detective, as well as a fighter. Get the supporting characters looking like theit comic book counterparts.


This is so right, Spiff... I CAN'T care about the Superman/Batman movie versions, as I don't know them.  These versions are not familiar to me.  I CAN care about Tobey MacGuires Parker, Ben Affleck's Matt Murdock and others.  Michael Chilkis IS Ben Grimm to a T. The casting in all the Marvel movies I've seen is SPOT ON (Save for window dressing/Botox lipped Alba, although I see why she has the part)

DC... get a hold on your characters... use what works in the original material (Clark/Lois/Superman triangle) on the big screen.

Sigh

Just some points. Marvel is doing more movies, not investing in faithful adaptations, but in targetting an specific public of teenagers who cound´t care less about who Peter Parker or Johnny Blaze really are. In the case of Spider-Man and The X-Men, we have good movies AND public success because Sam Raimi and Bryan Singer could merge good stories with the blockbuster tone. Also, they are more popular characters, not wordwide recognized, but popular today. In all the others, just like the Fantastic Four or The Hulk or Elektra or Ghost Rider, we either have a good movie OR a public acclaim OR neither. The target public of the movies, again, is not the comic book readers and never will be.

I also disagree about Superman Reurns and Batman Begins. To me, they´re the best versions of the characters in movies since Richard Donner´s 1978 Superman. About not being as faithful as the Marvel movies, for start the Marvel movies do a lot of trash, and second, Marvel comic books have a history. DC Comics have different interpretations that contradict each other. So Superman Returns is based on Superman For All Season, Must There Be a Superman?, and Secret Identity, but not other versions. Batman Begins is based on Batman: Year One, The Long Halloween, and Denny O´Neil stuff. They are also less mainstream productions and more personal works, especially Superman Returns by Singer, with all the alienation and messiah themes. In essence, they´ve "failed' for not connecting with current teenagers. That Smallville TV show, on the other hand... 

 

Yeah, I'd agree with you on this point.  Keaton's Batman was nifty to me but the most recent incarnation is the best so far.


Hmm... I didn't see much of Superman For All Seasons in SR, definitely I see "Must There Be a Superman?" - but Secret ID?  Not quite seeing that one either.  I thought it was more of a Funeral for a Friend riff going on during the coma scenes.  I think only now in the comics are we seeing the kid thing - thank you Donner.  I do like that angle on the kid better than Superman's own child version in the movie.  However, SR seems based completely on the Donner story than any particular comics storyline.  I hadn't thought this before but it occurs to me that the unofficial Superman revamp before Byrne is the "movie" Superman. 

I thought Batman Begins was rather good, and a bit stunning.  I took it having a bit more of Dark Knight Returns and Legends of the Dark Knight series.  I'm a bit OK with the body armor - but think it's too much - and should be subtler.

Interesting thoughts.

Same about Brandon Routh as Superman. Dean Cain and Tom Welling are fine as a post-Crisis Clark Kent, when Superman is not real, and in Smallville, is not even present. But Routh is Superman in the Returns movie.


I see the connection with the Funeral for a Friend story arc, and while Superman Returns did´t literally adapt Superman for All Seasons or Secret Identity, I think that the general "feeling" of the character was consistent with these books. To me, Superman Returns works as a sensorial experience about being the most powerful being in the universe and feel lonely, just like the Loeb and Busieks stories. It´s a great homage and sequence to Donner movies, but thematically, at least, I think is more loyal to these comics. 


Yes, but isn´t the "movie" Superman in tone with the Bronze Age version, more than with anything else? Maggin was consulted about the script, after all. The main difference is the time travel and changing history for loving Lois Lane, but I don´t see it as a revanp of Byrne´s level.


The armor thing may be a problem, but there are two points in the movie: Bruce Wayne is a ninja, so he woud´t need it; but, even being a ninja, he would´t risk being shot. So yes, it should be subtler, but is still an advance because in Begins, he at leat had the ninja training.

That's purely a matter of opinion; who's to say who is trying more than the other?

I have been thinking about the difference a lot lately.

I love comic book movies. I see most of them in the theater. I am a lover of Marvel comics. One cannot argue with the sheer number of Marvel movies out in recent memory. The first X-Men movie seemed to be the beginning of the Marvel wave that we are seeing now. However, they are not all good. Many of them make me wish I had stayed home! Accuracy is good, but it need to work as a movie and be intersting to watch.

case in point - Hulk.
Great character. great 70's TV program. Horrible movie. Just dreadful.

Ghost Rider - terrible.
Spiderman - eh. they were OK. I thought Spiderman needed more attitude and more taunting. That was what I always loved about him. Teasing the villians. Where was that?
X-Men - the first one was the best. I love the X-Men. The movies were pretty good but could have been better.

Daredevil. Yuck. Electra. OMG so bad. Way to ruin one of may favorite characters.

I liked Fantastic 4-2. It was not perfect but it was an improvement over the first.

The best comic book movie of all time though - Superman.
I firmly believe that. How did they get it so right? It just was perfect. And Superman 2? Even better than the best.

I like most of the Batman movies, 'cept Batman and Robin. Beetlejuice made a fine Batman, as did American Psycho. Its like James Bond, everyone plays Bats a little differently. They are all him.

As for Wonder Woman, how are you going to do better than Lynda Carter? She nailed that role. The show was rediculous but so much fun to watch for the kiddies and for the you know not-kiddies-any-more.

I'm with you on that one. I've seen the film several times, of course, and even with close to thirty years since I saw it first, it remains the best (if not the most faithful) comic book adaptation I can call to mind, with the first Spider-Man coming a close second. They hit the jackpot with the story, the effects and the casting - Margot Kidder was an inspired choice, for one.

Oh, if only Gene Hackman had worn the green and purple pyjamas in it!

By "trying" I meant that we've seen more Marvel movies than DC movies of late. Marvel's had Spider-Man (x3), X-Men (x3), FF (x2), Daredevil, Hulk, Electra, and Ghost Rider. DC's had Superman, Batman, and Catwoman. It seems that Marvel is more interested in making movies than DC is.

Keep in mind that those X-Men movies wouldn't have happened without all those pre-Batman Begins Batman movies that everyone seems to have forgotten about.  And that it was the Christopher Reeve Superman movies that pretty much created the genre.  Also on DC's side was Steel and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and V for Vendetta.

Yup - and slightly off-topic, you also have Superman's TV series in the 50's creating the live action superhero genre as well.  Actually, you also have Superman to thank for reinventing TV Superhero live action genre's 2 times - Smallville being the most productive of the lot.

Superman rocks!!!!

Well, I haven't seen Steel, and I think I can do without it; as far as LOEG  and Vendetta go, talk about the films completely missing the point. The immortal Moore's work simply doesn't translate well to the screen, because it's too complex and political.

It's dreadful to think that when the Watchmen film comes out, I'll probably go and see it (or watch it, more appropriately), but I know it will be awful and I will hate it. And I will hate myself for seeing it. There's just no way to break this cycle of self-hatred.

I think the Supes TV shows definitely count. The problem is that WB is kinda ghetto and while Smallville is entertaining. I can't help notice about how targeted towards teens it is. Not a bad thing but I am not a teen.

DC seems to favor its TV shows lately. WB in general seems to opt for the little screen first. Who knows, maybe its making them more money. Its just not as satisfying for the fans. IMHO.

Marvel has associated themselves with Universal and NBC. They seem to have more creative control. I think Stan Lee has made some shrewd decisions and put Marvel in a really good place to make the movies they want to. I wish the same was true for DC. With the right sponsorship they could really make some great movies and give Marvel a run for their money. Who knows, it might make the Marvel movies suck less.

 ;D


There's going to be a "Watchmen" film? That's ridiculous. How can that be? How will they separate the comic book story from the art? Where does one end and the other begin? "Watchmen" would be even more of a problem than other super-hero movies. It's only suited to the one medium.

That's exactly what Alan Moore said! His words were something to the effect that it's something you sit down to read in a comfortable arm chair with a steaming cup of coffee. I can't really see how you could do it either - there are so many details and you have to keep going back to check them, like the little substory with the sugar cubes.

So THAT's what that was!  I could never take that scene entirely seriously either.  I couldn't stop thinking of him as Mr. Mom out of costume.  He just didn't do it for me as Bruce Wayne.  Alec Baldwin would've been a better choice from Beetlejuice, and he probably would've had more chemistry with Basinger. 

Maybe I missed it, but I'm having a hard time believing this thread has gone on so long without mentioning Avi Arad.

I guess the whole thing I've been thinking about this is that Marvel has been getting a bigger exposure with it's characters on the big screen.  I never thought of DC's small screen stuff, but when it comes to big motion pictures, Marvel has jumped right in.  Yeah, there have been duds, but I haven't seen them.

When it comes to it, I've been impressed with the Marvel movies I HAVE seen.  They're a lot more "accurate" than the DC ones...

I mean, Batman has been a lifelong favorite on mine, but the 5 latest Batman live action movies portray a guy the I don't recognize AT ALL.  Where's the detective?  Where's the master of disguise?  I just see a guy in a rubber suit beating up bad guys.

Avi Arad. Happy now? He's the bloke who produces the cartoons, right? Your point, Monsieur, she is, 'ow you say, eluding me.

Je ne comprend pas...  dommage.  :)

As near as I can figure, Avi Arad was the key ingredient that turned Marvel characters from being low-quality jokes on film to high-quality efforts that have been generally well-received.  He's been a key part of the live-action as well as the animated stuff.  He doesn't have a perfect track record by any means, but even his failed efforts are miles above Albert Pyun's Captain America. 

Oh, okay, I've got you now. I didn't know all that.

Speaking of the Captain America film, which I've never seen, I only recently found out that it stars Matt Salinger, son of J.D., which is a strange and wonderful thing.

Sorry if someone else pointed this out and I missed it.  There are a dozen of these "I'm a Marvel, and I'm a DC" shorts up on YouTube now, and most are pretty funny.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av6fWfmugds