Impact of Marvel and DC Films on Past & Future Films in the CBM Genre

[ComicJunkie21]

However you put it, I still think diversifying is s good thing, and limiting a minimal amount of their overall output isn't going to hurt them. They factor that in. Otherwise, R rated movies wouldn't even exist anymore.

I never said diversifying wasn't a good thing. I personally look forward to it with films like Joker, Logan, and Deadpool proving how enjoyable they can be. The point I was trying bring out is sometimes diversifying can lead to excluding a potential larger audience and having the R rating alone immediately removes the ability for some groups to even view the film. But who knows I did see parents in the theaters taking their 6 and 7 year old kids to see Joker.

[Theleviathan]

My opinion on director creative freedom applies to future films. Although there are known instances of directors having creative differences and not being allowed to do things in the mcu films. The directors that keep coming back are the new up and coming ones that didn't have much going on in the first place. Not dissing them by any means but it's a lot easier to retain people coming back when they don't have any new gigs lined up that pays as good.

I am talking about quality in film being one sided for Marvel and in TV for DC.

I think what can be looked at is the impact the past few years are going to have on each company's future. I stated that I think both will suffer in some form and imo it seems that Marvel will have the bigger mountain to climb based off of what they've done and what they are trying to do.

You don't know what will happen with director freedom going forward. What has happened in the past indicates Marvel allows significant freedom.

Marvel's challenge isn't a mountain, it's staying on top of the mountain. DC has to prove it can make more than one good film in a row. Or more than one film in a row that captures the public's interest.

[Osiris-Rex]

I think we've seen that studios play follow the leader. The MCU's success lead to a lot of half-baked cinematic universes started (and mostly failed) by other companies. If DC's recent experimenting with "R"-rated comic book movies continues to be successful, we'll probably see more of those in the future.


I think DC has proven they can deliver with the right creators. As far as the R-rated stuff, some people are going to like it, other's wont. Me? I'm salty with them making Birds of Prey R, but I don't think that's going to change much.

I don't think DC was wrong trying to create a cinematic universe to rival the MCU. The just picked the wrong director to lead it. Zack Snyder's films were terribly divisive and by the time it became obvious DC was too far down the road.
Snyder basically killed the DCEU. With another director whose movies were better received overall leading the helm DC could be leading the cinematic universe as they have better known characters. Batman v Captain America?
Superman v Iron Man? Justice League v Avengers?

[Beaddle]

I don't think DC was wrong trying to create a cinematic universe to rival the MCU. The just picked the wrong director to lead it. Zack Snyder's films were terribly divisive and by the time it became obvious DC was too far down the road.
Snyder basically killed the DCEU. With another director whose movies were better received overall leading the helm DC could be leading the cinematic universe as they have better known characters. Batman v Captain America?
Superman v Iron Man? Justice League v Avengers?

DC were pressured to make a cinematic universe. they were not wrong to do so but they were pressured. this is the best way to look at it. DC already had ironic well established characters that had individual and joint impact. Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman. The closest thing Marvel had to this was Spiderman, X-men and F4, reason those were sold off when marvel went bankrupt. When the concept came along, I think it struck a core with marvel IPs most never heard off, so it worked. For DC their IPs was already well known trying to do the cinematic stuff with dc was never going to have the same charm.

Snyder basically killed the DCEU. With another director whose movies were better received overall leading the helm DC could be leading the cinematic universe as they have better known characters. Batman v Captain America?
Superman v Iron Man? Justice League v Avengers?

MCU characters like Thor, Iron Man, Captain America were kind of the underdogs. DC characters were all the legends we knew. In an irony, here is Snyder mocking Thor.



Snyder even brags Thor was a nobody and Superman is this iconic legend but as it turns out, the First Thor film did a better job getting thor right than Snyder did getting Superman right. Snyder was as you said was the wrong director and no amount of iconicness of superman was going to help that he got the character wrong which lead to a lot of problems for DC.while a character like Thor, you wanted to know more about him from the first film and his relationship with Loki, who became a break out.

I don't think Snyder was as bad as Kinberg in killing a franchise but Snyder never got a full chance either despite how he got so many things wrong with Superman and then Batman. there are some good stuff he did that could have smoothened out but then the MCU impact got so big, DC buckled under the pressure to be like them. Aquaman, Shazam and Justice League were all impacted by the MCU style. However I think this was only for a short while. DC has gone back to been DC again and that is great.

[ComicJunkie21]

DC were pressured to make a cinematic universe. they were not wrong to do so but they were pressured. this is the best way to look at it. DC already had ironic well established characters that had individual and joint impact. Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman. The closest thing Marvel had to this was Spiderman, X-men and F4, reason those were sold off when marvel went bankrupt. When the concept came along, I think it struck a core with marvel IPs most never heard off, so it worked. For DC their IPs was already well known trying to do the cinematic stuff with dc was never going to have the same charm. MCU characters were kind of the underdogs. DC characters were all the legends.



In an irony, here is Snyder mocking Thor.



Snyder even brags Thor was a nobody and Superman is this iconic legend but as it turns out, the First Thor film did a better job getting thor right than Snyder did getting Superman right. Snyder was as you said was the wrong director and no amount of iconicness of superman was going to help that he got the character wrong which lead to a lot of problems.


I don't think Snyder was as bad as Kinberg in killing a franchise but Snyder never got a chance. there are some good stuff he did that could have smoothen out but then the MCU impact got so big, DC buckled under the pressure. Aquaman, Shazam and Justice League were all impacted by the MCU style.

I think Shazam and Aquaman being impacted was a good thing. I like the Shazam director and how he geeked out about voicing Mr. Mind, it showed that WB got a director that actually liked the character. With Aquaman, they got the right actor to make him cool which is what needed to occur as he was the butt of all comic jokes for years. Shazam is definitely a film that needed to be MCU like when it came to a lighter tone as that fits the actual character. The only thing I was mad about in Shazam is Mark Strong was used a Thaddeus Sivanna. He should've been Lex Luthor dang it!

[WebLurker]

My post said no such thing. Since when does a historical timeline of the impact marvel and DC movies have had become an endless debate of what sucks. you are reading much into things that are not there. How you can interpret that as MCU sucks is beyond me.

I know you and I have good reading comprehension.

I don't think DC was wrong trying to create a cinematic universe to rival the MCU. The just picked the wrong director to lead it. Zack Snyder's films were terribly divisive and by the time it became obvious DC was too far down the road.
Snyder basically killed the DCEU. With another director whose movies were better received overall leading the helm DC could be leading the cinematic universe as they have better known characters. Batman v Captain America?
Superman v Iron Man? Justice League v Avengers?

No, of all the attempted cinematic universes to date, the DCEU is one of the very few that actually makes a lot of sense for existing, since the source material is designed for such a project. Agree that hiring Snyder to put it together was one of the mistakes that derailed it (alongside getting impatient and not building up slow like Marvel Studios did). On the other hand, I have liked a lot of the movies that have come out since they got their act together, so I guess I can't complain too much.

[titanfan]

Marvel's challenge isn't a mountain, it's staying on top of the mountain. DC has to prove it can make more than one good film in a row. Or more than one film in a row that captures the public's interest.

Wonder Woman/Aquaman/Shazam/Joker?

It's on a mini-roll lately.

In any case, there's nothing wrong with being #2. It's not like Burger King should close up shop because no one can beat McDonald's. There's a lot of money on the table still.

[ComicJunkie21]

You don't know what will happen with director freedom going forward. What has happened in the past indicates Marvel allows significant freedom.

Marvel's challenge isn't a mountain, it's staying on top of the mountain. DC has to prove it can make more than one good film in a row. Or more than one film in a row that captures the public's interest.

Marvel's challenge is going to be hard based on what they have done and are trying to do. 1) They will more than likely have to restrict what can be done from a creative standpoint so that future films don't contradict themselves from past works because that is the framework that's been built. 2) Marvel is trying to expand their universe to include tv shows. This is asking alot from the general audience (non fanboys) to keep up with multiple films and multiple tv series, in order to enjoy the larger storylines, its asking for burnout as well as another subscription if the series are only on Disney+.

DC still has some proving to do but let's be honest one or two more films and people will be okay with them again especially the female audience as they offer better female characters imo. Not to mention DC still has their core characters to play with, whereas Marvel is going to have to find replacements for Iron Man and Captain America.

[ComicJunkie21]

Wonder Woman/Aquaman/Shazam/Joker?

It's on a mini-roll lately.

In any case, there's nothing wrong with being #2. It's not like Burger King should close up shop because no one can beat McDonald's. There's a lot of money on the table still.

I think Marvel has had a good run and historically the two companies switch places every few years. One company does good for a while and their work inspires the other company to do innovative things too. I don't think now is any different. Do I think that DC is going to make Endgame money anytime soon, no. But do I think that DC will become more popular in the next few years, yes. Marvel has made roughly 18 billion from their films most of which came from their later phases and team up films. DC has made less than 6 billion with 7 movies, most of which were panned. Aquaman alone had similar numbers to the first 3 avengers team up films and he is considered to be the lame superhero. WW had over 800 million at the box office without a china release. DC characters imo have the ability to make more per film when done correctly.

[Vakanai]

You don't know what will happen with director freedom going forward. What has happened in the past indicates Marvel allows significant freedom.

Marvel's challenge isn't a mountain, it's staying on top of the mountain. DC has to prove it can make more than one good film in a row. Or more than one film in a row that captures the public's interest.

I don't know why people keep bringing DC up as before inconsistent and needing to prove that they can bring a lot of good movies out in a row - all their bad movies were either directed by Snyder or was under his influence (Suicide Squad), and he's gone now. Since then they've had nothing but success.

[WebLurker]

I don't know why people keep bringing DC up as before inconsistent and needing to prove that they can bring a lot of good movies out in a row - all their bad movies were either directed by Snyder or was under his influence (Suicide Squad), and he's gone now. Since then they've had nothing but success.

I guess they haven't proven themselves yet? I mean, they seemed to be on a rise with Wonder Woman and then Justice League happened.

[Theleviathan]

Wonder Woman/Aquaman/Shazam/Joker?

It's on a mini-roll lately.

In any case, there's nothing wrong with being #2. It's not like Burger King should close up shop because no one can beat McDonald's. There's a lot of money on the table still.

I'm not saying they should close up shop, I just didn't like the analogy. Marvel doesn't have a mountain to climb, they built their own mountain that no one expected.

And yeah, I thought Aquaman was fun. Wonder Woman was 2/3 great and 1/3 hot garbage. Joker was solid, but mostly a remake. Shazam was fun.

Justice League, however, wanted to make me gouge my eyes out and Suicide Squad should never be watched without a dude and his two robots providing commentary. DC is trending right, so it's apt to say they need to show they can keep climbing the mountain. Marvel isn't there. They've succeeded at a level no one could have dreamed, the only question is how long they can maintain this ridiculous run. DC is miles from that point.

[Beaddle]

I think Shazam and Aquaman being impacted was a good thing. I like the Shazam director and how he geeked out about voicing Mr. Mind, it showed that WB got a director that actually liked the character. With Aquaman, they got the right actor to make him cool which is what needed to occur as he was the butt of all comic jokes for years. Shazam is definitely a film that needed to be MCU like when it came to a lighter tone as that fits the actual character. The only thing I was mad about in Shazam is Mark Strong was used a Thaddeus Sivanna. He should've been Lex Luthor dang it!

Did you ever think Shazam was out there to trick the media and some people? DC played it nicely, the media was forcing them to be light and fun, so they played along and with Shazam and then unleashed the Joker.

You have to know something is up when a DC movie seems more kid friendly than their Saturday morning cartoons.

[Midvillian1322]

Did you ever think Shazam was out there to trick the media and some people? DC played it nicely, the media was forcing them to be light and fun, so they played along and with Shazam and then unleashed the Joker.

You have to know something is up when a DC movie seems more kid friendly than their Saturday morning cartoons.

Did you ever think that people just enjoyed Shazam? Why does everything have to be some kinda conspiracy with you. The media didnt force anything DC made a movie that fit the character and it was well made so people responded kindly.

[WebLurker]

Did you ever think that people just enjoyed Shazam? Why does everything have to be some kinda conspiracy with you. The media didnt force anything DC made a movie that fit the character and it was well made so people responded kindly.

Yeah, I don't understand the thought process myself.