DCEU vs. MCU

[CosmiComic]

I think an important aspect people need to remember is there is not a DC Studios like there is a Marvel Studios. This is a pretty big deal unfortunately when we look at the business and operations side of things. DC is at the mercy of WB and has to compete with other sections for budgets and on top of that the leadership historically doesn't seem to care about cbm they just see the money that could be made. If DC had its own studio it would fair better imo because it would have a central focus and be able to execute strategy better.

Marvel having their own studio has way more control around the business and operations. Disney will step in occassionally but the control points aren't the same as with WB.

It would be better if DC was split off into its own studio for everyone's benefit and just have WB be a distributor.

Agree. DCEU needs some kind of head master to make everything fit together, while still allowing each director to do their own thing

[CosmiComic]

Until now there was only one Star Trek series at a time, or a movie every few years.

DS9 was on at the same time as later seasons of TNG, and then VOY was the same to DS9 and the TNG movies. Right now we have DIS and PIC, and will get SNW

[Vakanai]

DS9 was on at the same time as later seasons of TNG, and then VOY was the same to DS9 and the TNG movies. Right now we have DIS and PIC, and will get SNW

I didn't know that, but that's still two episodic series overlapping for no more than a few years or so? It's still just not on the same level as the MCU. It might get that way with all these new series. I really don't think there's anything comparable in history to the sheer glut of "shared continuity" media in such a short time frame. It's new.

[CosmiComic]

I didn't know that, but that's still two episodic series overlapping for no more than a few years or so? It's still just not on the same level as the MCU. It might get that way with all these new series. I really don't think there's anything comparable in history to the sheer glut of "shared continuity" media in such a short time frame. It's new.

I agree it's unprecedented.

I've heard we're also getting a new Star Trek movie at some point but I'm not sure

[ComicJunkie21]

Agree. DCEU needs some kind of head master to make everything fit together, while still allowing each director to do their own thing

I think headmaster isn't the only issue unfortunately. They need to have control over their own budgets and operations instead of being in a shared pool with other films. I think this affects number of films per year and release timelines. Aquaman's film should never have been pushed to 2022, that's ridiculous.

[dreamglide]

One thing that I've appreciated with the DC films in recent years is WB's willingness to let certain properties go for an R rating, both in and out of continuity. Not that I want that for every film, but it shows that there is another club in the bag for WB.

[CosmiComic]

I think headmaster isn't the only issue unfortunately. They need to have control over their own budgets and operations instead of being in a shared pool with other films. I think this affects number of films per year and release timelines. Aquaman's film should never have been pushed to 2022, that's ridiculous.

Idk if DC needs too many films at once, but it does need more control over its own budgets and operations

[WebLurker]

My problem with AoU was Ultron turned evil too quickly. To me him coming from the mind stone wasn't clear enough Unlike other phases, AoU didn't build up on the previous movies in Phase 2. Plus, the three new heroes didn't get enough screen time IMO, especially Vision, and the twins needed more backstory. Their powers are more interesting to me than those of most of the other Avengers. The final fight scene was also way too repetitive of the first Avengers. I felt Ultron trying to blow the world was cliche, although his methods were unique. I feel the comic version is a more distinct character. I wish the gigantic Ultron was used instead

I'd agree it's not a perfect movie, but I think it worked better as a movie made to set up the next film then other one's we'e gotten before.

Tbh, I don't think BvS is a bad movie. I like parts of it, it's just poorly fit together, and Clark barely has a personality. But I agree about MCU > Snyderverse

Agreed. Each series is a subseries of the main series. That's the point. The comics are like that too

Okay.

Until now there was only one Star Trek series at a time, or a movie every few years.

TNG, DS9, and VOY all overlap (DS9 was never running alone), and the seasons released in a given year were actually happening concurrently. In fact, the franchise cross-pollinated itself on a level beyond the MCU (the Maquis are a prime example, running through all the series, and each one playing off the information established in the other). Even the movies were fully integrated into things, with events from the TV shows being taken into account (e.g. explaining that Worf is a guest in the movies set during DS9), and vice versa -- something the MCU never really succeeded at, and is starting over after decanonizing the first batch of MCU TV shows (despite them kinda needing the MCU to make sense).

ENT did end that streak and the current TV shows, like it, are set at different times, so there is little interplay between them (it's more like borrowing the lore, like how Star Trek Beyond makes accurate references to the ENT era after the first two Kelvin movies didn't worry about such things). Granted, the current phases of Star Trek have been playing pretty fast and lose with canon in terms of the look of things, so it's not quite a cohesive as the MCU is currently, but, for a time, it was a cinematic universe before cinematic universes were a thing

(Also, the new shows are assuming that you're pretty familiar with Star Trek; DSC generally assumes that people know about TOS, you have to have watched TNG and VOY to make sense of PIC, and you have to know the entire franchise's worth of Star Trek lore to understand half the jokes and humor in Lower Decks. If anything, Phase 4 Star Trek has even worse "continuity lockout" then the MCU.)

[Powerboy]

I'd agree it's not a perfect movie, but I think it worked better as a movie made to set up the next film then other one's we'e gotten before.



Okay.



TNG, DS9, and VOY all overlap (DS9 was never running alone), and the seasons released in a given year were actually happening concurrently. In fact, the franchise cross-pollinated itself on a level beyond the MCU (the Maquis are a prime example, running through all the series, and each one playing off the information established in the other). Even the movies were fully integrated into things, with events from the TV shows being taken into account (e.g. explaining that Worf is a guest in the movies set during DS9), and vice versa -- something the MCU never really succeeded at, and is starting over after decanonizing the first batch of MCU TV shows (despite them kinda needing the MCU to make sense).

ENT did end that streak and the current TV shows, like it, are set at different times, so there is little interplay between them (it's more like borrowing the lore, like how Star Trek Beyond makes accurate references to the ENT era after the first two Kelvin movies didn't worry about such things). Granted, the current phases of Star Trek have been playing pretty fast and lose with canon in terms of the look of things, so it's not quite a cohesive as the MCU is currently, but, for a time, it was a cinematic universe before cinematic universes were a thing

(Also, the new shows are assuming that you're pretty familiar with Star Trek; DSC generally assumes that people know about TOS, you have to have watched TNG and VOY to make sense of PIC, and you have to know the entire franchise's worth of Star Trek lore to understand half the jokes and humor in Lower Decks. If anything, Phase 4 Star Trek has even worse "continuity lockout" then the MCU.)

I never thought of that but it's true. The main reason everything that happened in Agents of Shield was ignored in the movies was the assumption that people would not know what happened and you can't have a movie plot hinge, even a little, on what happens in a show most people haven't seen.

But the Star Trek movies worked from the assumption that people knew what was going on in the shows, at least to the extent that Worf was on DS9 and they had to explain his return to the Enterprise. Although, with every passing series, I think less and less of the public has seen them. I don't think a Star Trek movie today could work from the assumption that everyone has seen Discovery or Picard.

[CosmiComic]

I think making the shows connect to the movies and improve the viewing experience but not be absolutely necessary is the best route IMHO