No, everybody does not have an idea of the characters in their head.
Comic book fans just don’t get it. They can’t grasp how little some people know about their world.
I’d never even heard of Iron Man before the movie came out. I had a vague notion that Captain America existed and that there were popular comic books called X-Men. I have no recollection of hearing anything about the Green Lantern before a few years ago. The only thing I know about Daredevil is that the movie flopped. I didn’t know Ghost Rider had been a comic book. The only one of the Fantastic Four that I recognize is the guy who looks like a rock, and I didn’t know he was in the Fantastic Four until I looked it up a few days ago. I still have no idea who the other ones are.
And yet, I’ve seen every Marvel Cinematic Universe movie since Iron Man in the theater, first run, full price, with only one exception.* Go figure.
All the talk about DC having had more success in the past and so forth may be true, but one thing DC has never done is created an umbrella brand that virtually guarantees that hordes of non-comic-fan moviegoers will buy a ticket for a given movie. The new Captain America is coming out in a week or so. Of course I’m seeing it. It was never even a question.
I didn’t go see the Incredible Hulk because I realized too late that it wasn’t some sort of sequel to the 2003 movie with the really-bad-CGI neon-green Hulk
I think it really just comes down to the fact that Marvel’s movie-making studios do a much better job than DC’s. Nolan did a good job with Batman, but that’s about it. Superman’s been meh. Green Lantern was terrible and its amazing to think they ever thought it could be a new tentpole franchise.
OTOH, it’s the other way around for the cartoons and animated movies, though - DC’s stuff is generally very good, while Marvel struggles to make anything that’s better than average, and those that are get cancelled before their time.
DC movies come from a single studio, Warner Bros, which is overly protective of its characters’ archetypal importance. They’re keeping Wonder Woman on the bench because essentially no director is good enough for her.
Marvel films are currently produced by three competing studios who are one-upping each other. Fox and Sony have to deliver solid, profitable films or the licenses will lapse to Disney, potentially costing them billions. This is a source of great consternation for Disney executives, but ultimately, the fan/viewer benefits.
Also, I think the fact that Marvel is making a lot more movies these days than DC allows us to overlook all the bad Marvel product out there. The Ghost Rider movies were unwatchable. The Fantastic Four movies were an embarrassment. The Wolverine movies were blah. The Spider-Man reboot came and went quietly. Punisher: War Zone disappeared without a trace. Even Iron Man 2 was a creative misfire. When we talk about Marvel’s run of success, we’re only really talking about a relative handful of films.
Moreover, my guess is that the upcoming Ant-Man will be played for laughs (Paul Rudd as a shrinking man?) or at least camp, and I wonder if it will be the “Batman and Robin” moment when Marvel’s run of creative success begins to collapse.
They are making wildly profitable superhero movies, though. They just aren’t churning them out as consistently as Marvel. Marvel Studios has all the time in the world to devote to Marvel movies, while DC movies have to wait their turn in line at Warner Bros.
So while Marvel can quickly follow their missteps up with something good. DC’s missteps have to sort of linger for a few years and you cross your fingers that the next thing is better.
In fairness, there’s an important distinction here between movies made from Marvel comics, and movies made by Marvel Studios. Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, Ghost Rider, and Wolverine weren’t made by Marvel studios, but were the result of the spree of licensing Marvel went through a few years back to stave off bankruptcy. The Spider-Man reboot (and upcoming FF reboot) exist solely to allow their respective studios to maintain the license, rather than lose it back to Marvel Studios.
I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying.
I quoted Horatio Hellpop who said that Warner Brothers is “overly protective of its characters’ archetypal importance” and that they haven’t made a Wonder Woman movie because “no director is good enough for her.” There are many reasons why they’re not making as many DC movies right now as Marvel movies, but it’s very unlikely that Warner Brothers’ own sentimental devotion to the characters has anything to do with it.
They’re going to be mindful of audience expectations and they’re going to take care not to damage a franchise’s potential for future projects/profits, but the head of Warner Brothers is not saying “Only Orson Welles would have been good enough to direct a Wonder Woman movie and he’s dead, so we’re going to go ahead with Green Lantern 2.”
Regardless, unwashed brain, I think there are a couple problems with your list.
First, anybody who puts The Dark Knight Rises in the top three has something seriously, seriously wrong with them.* Second, one of the problems with the “DC is just fine” argument is that it relies on movies released more than twenty years ago. I’m not saying they were bad movies, but at some point you don’t get to brag anymore.
Which is part of the problem. Yeah, DC was great - but that was a long time ago. The Dark Knight was great, but that was over half a decade ago and DC hasn’t really had a hit since. The Dark Knight Rises sold well, but it was pretty obviously coasting on the prior movie. Man of Steel did pretty well - but it was also clear they expecting much more. Artistically, both the latter films seemed rather lost. Which is the big problem DC’s movies face; they seem to want to go big or go home.
And unfortunately, I don’t see Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer as particularly appropriate leaders for this kind of project. They seem instead like the guys who are going to produce a couple mediocre movies before finally flopping completely because they can’t vary their styles.
I’m just being snarky, you’re fully allowed to believe it was a good movie.*
FWIW - many many moons ago, I was a Marvel comics fanatic. (this is back in the 60’s). I bought every Marvel comic I could get my hands on. I admired Superman somewhat but found him dull. I thought DC comics were either boring or stupid. Batman bored me to tears.
For me, DC comics between 30 cents and the New Teen Titans are deathly dull. And around the time Sandman ended everyone pretty much sucked, though I like Bendis’ stuff and I loved the the 52 series DC did and really started to get into their universe again…and then they rebooted it. Fuck them.
DC’s characters are simply more iconic. It’s difficult to translate that to the big screen. And please let’s not start 5 new pages detailing how iconic Marvel is etc…Marvel has iconicism mixed with a lot of character. Which is why Thor can succeed. He IS the God of Thunder with a great supporting cast and tons of pathos in his relationship with his father. Batman works because he’s grounded and he’s iconic. But Superman works best when you see very little of the man underneath, and A LOT of the Big ‘S’.
As touched on in the quoted section. DC doesn’t even frigging understand Superman. They lowered his powers in Crisis on Infinite Earths to enhance the ‘man’ in Superman. Okay, that’s fine. It was very well done. And they really pounded home the iconic aspects too. Okay, we’re all fine…then they half-assedly change his origin. This is their flagship character and all of a sudden we don’t even know his GD origin. And he flounders around…til even Batman says, “When’s the last time you did something that really changed lives, besides dying?”
Then they decide the underwear is too ‘silly for modern audiences’? Fuck you DC. You don’t even get it.
None of this matters. It’s all studios, producers, and directors. If Marvel somehow bought the rights to the DC stable of characters tomorrow, you would see great and successful movies starring these characters in short order.