Superman is boring and the previous Supes movie irritated me SO much i haven’t gotten around to watching Man of Steel (though its on my queue so please don’t spoil it).
And then there’s the new Xmen movies which I frankly adore. Fassbender for the win!
That’d be interesting if that’s true for the general audience, it might very well be, but I can’t find any definite statistics about repeat audience. I googled but couldn’t find anything definitive. I found one statistic about most blockbusters having a repeat audience of 5%, but couldn’t find any more about specific films.
For myself, I know that a lot of my friends and family saw the Batman movies, but for the Marvel movies its more varied. I have some nerd friends who have seen the Marvel movies repeatedly, and some who haven’t seen any of them, or just The Avengers. My parents have seen some of the Marvel movies, but only saw The Avengers on DVD.
It’s the combination of hot and fun. The Marvel studs all have fun dialogue in the movies, and interact with fandom in a very “we’re all in this together so why don’t we keep it fun?” attitude. The DC stars are like lifesize action figures. No personality. Very little unscripted interaction.
There’s a feel that the Marvel stars are fans themselves. They dive into the fandom waters like it’s an adventure instead of a job. That goes a LONG way toward making them more likeable, desirable and swooned-over.
I wonder if it’s that Mark Ruffalo has some sort of unconventional sexy thing going that I don’t see. He’s clearly not in the same looks category as most of the other superhero actors- not particularly tall, muscular or classically handsome. That’s not to say he’s ugly, but he’s not that handsome.
I wonder how much of it is the characters they play; like others have said, even though Christian Bale and Henry Cavill are both very handsome guys, and in Cavill’s case, muscled up enough to rival Hemsworth’s Thor, they don’t really get the love that the others do, because Batman and Superman are too serious.
It’s really not that hard to figure out. Who would you rather be with, for 30 minutes or 30 years? A grim, scowling, humorless wall of muscles, or a warm, wise-cracking, smiling wall of muscles who can actually hold a conversation that consists of more than grunts?
The more I think about it (and I can’t say I really have thought about it until I read this thread), I think it’s got less to do with the pure visual aesthetics and everything to do with the attitude we’re getting. From a purely aesthetic point of view, there’s real no major difference in relative attractiveness. It’s partially a function of the characters portrayed and partially a function of the way the actors (and probably the studios and writers) are framing the whole thing.
Can you even imagine dating Superman or Batman? I mean, Henry Cavill is certainly an impressive specimen of manhood and all, but Superman was not having any freaking fun at all in Man of Steel, was he? And at no point did Batman have anything that even remotely resembled fun in the Dark Knight movies. They were at best “serious” and at worst “dour”. Who wants to spend time with a brooding asshole? Or a perfect moral and physical specimen? Arguably, Marvel’s answer to Superman is Captain America - but Steve Rogers, while a morally upright perfect specimen of Dudley Dorightness, is still notably an interesting and real character in ways that Superman just isn’t.
Don’t get me wrong, I would happily bang several of the Marvel Gentlemen like a rented bongo drum (which is a fact my husband is well aware of - I’m married, not dead) and I have essentially no corresponding urge towards the DC Fellas. A good part of the reason I feel that way about the Marvel Gentlemen but not so much the DC Fellas is mostly that the crew from Marvel seem to be having a hellaciously good time with all this. Witness the article about Mark Ruffalo and the Science Bros linked earlier - if that’s even remotely true, his whole attitude is the reason I have stronger positive feelings about the Marvel movie machine lately than the DC one.
I get the feeling (rightly or wrongly) that, for example, Robert Downey, Jr. is firmly in the “HOLY BALLS THIS IS AWESOME SHIT!” camp, whereas Christian Bale is earnestly thinking about his craft. Iron Man and Batman are both 1% of the most epic possible sort - but Iron Man is having a good fucking time. Even if we’re only discussing a passing rented-bongo-banging here, I’d much rather go forth and essay hot monkey lovin’ with someone who seems inclined to have a good fucking time with it, yanno?
I admit, I am a Loki girl. I don’t usually go for the muscles but I do like to look at them. But I do find Thor sexy, too, but for reasons other than his muscles like how he’s a bit awkward and clueless at times. And he loves his adopted brother, even with everything Loki has done he continues to want to believe that his brother can change for the good.
Sense of humor and character quirks make these guys more interesting, it isn’t just looks. I can’t remember anything about the Superman movie and I haven’t even seen the last Batman. They haven’t made that much of an impression.
“Rachel, I love you, but given the choice between you, and dressing up like a Dracula and beating up mental patients, I’m picking the option that let’s me punch the maximum number of clowns.”
Humor and charisma is why I think the only good movie Superman has been Christopher Reeve. Especially in the first movie, Superman wasn’t above teasing Lois and throwing a sly smile and wink in everyone’s direction. Sure, he was serious (he’s Superman) but he still looked like a guy who knew how to have some fun, at least when he wasn’t trying to save the universe. Animated Batman and Superman have had much better personalities by far than their live-action counterparts.
The problem is Warner Brothers. They’ve held to this idea that the only way to move a superhero movie is by making it uber grimdark since the first Bale Batman.
In contrast, there have been two other Superman treatments that did have an interesting/desirable male lead, both of which have and still get considerable love from the female fan base (and probably the gay male as well). There was Lois and Clark, the New Adventures of Superman that ran for four years in the 1990’s and Smallville, which ran 10 seasons. In both cases Clark Kent may have been an invulnerable, super-strong, near-godlike physical specimen but a lot of the appeal was due to the emotional vulnerability of the character in question. In both those TV shows you had a Superman/Clark/Kal-El who needed other people, who *needed *human contact and approval and companionship. In Superman Returns Supes doesn’t seem to need anybody on that emotional/psychological level, so why the hell should I care about or desire him? Ditto for most of the Batman franchise - Batman is such a loner he doesn’t need/want anyone else, so why should I want him? Bruce Wayne is as crazy-psycho as the Joker when you get down to it, his madness just manifests differently.
Contrast this with DC’s current TV version of Arrow - Ollie is deeply flawed and it’s the human interactions and his need for others that make him an interesting character.
It’s not that DC characters can’t be interesting or charismatic, it’s that DC isn’t producing fiction that shows them that way. Why? I don’t know - as noted, they did that with at least the first two Christopher Reeve Superman movies (never did see 3 and 4). Yes, some of that was down to Reeve’s acting abilities but it was also some good writing as well.
In my opinion, the best Superman stories comes from treating Clark Kent as the main person, along with his emotional and psychological needs, rather than treating Superman as the main identity (this is sometimes expressed as “Superman is what I can do, Clark is who I am.”) I don’t know how you fix Batman - he’s always been grimdark to one degree or another. For all the camp of the Adam West TV Batman he at least had human connections and gave a damn about other people, the most recent movie versions seem to portray him as not giving a damn about civilians other than maybe a thought to collateral damage.
Contrast all that with the Marvel guys, who always are flawed, have psychological needs, are constantly seeking a connection to normal people or a normal life (of some sort - what Thor considers normal is different than what Tony Stark does which is, again, different from what Steve Rogers wants), or are trying to build a place where they can be accepted for who they are (see entire X-men franchise). That doesn’t mean that particular element is the main driving point of the plot, but it always seems to be there and lends a connection to both other works in the fictional universe and a connection to the audience.
IMHO (as a straight dude), no actor since Christopher Reeves has managed to make Superman likable to anyone. They don’t make him dislikable. They just seem to make him too perfect and charmless. Not to mention the trend to make Superman/Kent more angsty and brooding. Not every freakin Superhero has to be Batman or Wolverine. What does Kent have to brood about? The destruction of a homeworld and the death of parents he has no memory of? Being raised by loving parents in an idealistic Midwestern small town? Being cursed with super strength, invulnerability and heat vision?
And Christian Bale sort of channels Patrick Bateman as Bruce Wayne.
Mark Ruffalo is more the generic frumpy Rom-Com “nice guy”.
Broomstick - I think you’ve got a real point. In a way, we can see ourselves in the Marvel heroes. Who wouldn’t be all “Holy crap, this is fantastic!!” if they had super powers. Sure, you’d still have the problems and concerns that come with being human (or Asgardian), but still, just to be able to fly from building to building or get your car out of a tight parking space by tugging at it. Most people would get a kick out of it. DC heroes, as they’re doing it today, have no sense of fun.
I think Robert Downey makes Iron Man a lot more likeable than he is in the comics. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen him have any fun in the comics. He’s normally just an uptight jerk.