Is there any indication within the various movie adaptations of various comic books from various companies that each company has any intention that its movies take place within the same continuity? Is Ben Affleck’s Daredevil in the same NYC as Tobey Maguire’s Spider-Man? Is Chris Reeve’s Metropolis on the same Earth as Michael Keaton/Val Kilmer/George Clooney’s (or for that matter Adam West’s) Batman?
Nope. Licensing of comic characters is very expensive, which would make putting more than one major character into a film quite expensive. Keep in mind also that movies are the literary equivilent of a short story, or in comic terms, roughly a three to four issue story arc.
With Spider-Man, for examle, you get the origin story a bit altered from Amazing Fantasy #15, then the Green Goblin origin, then the Gwen Stacy arc from Amazing Spider-Man 120-122, with MJ substituted for Gwen and obvious details altered. Thats about 5 issues total, in a movie unusually long by Hollywood standards. There isn’t really much room in a storyline that short to develop more than a couple of major characters. In this case, you already have Peter, MJ, and Norman.
What about a drop in, then, a cameo? Because of liscensing expenses, we’re unlikely to see this; if a company pays a lot of money to use a character, they’re going to want to use him for something other than a cameo.
I’m pretty sure one of the Batman movie sequels dropped a quick reference to Metropolis.
In Batman and Robin “This is why Superman works alone.” I can’t believe I saw that movie in the theaters 
.
I thought they could have done a lot better in the Spiderman movie by basing it more on the Ultimate Spiderman series. It had Spiderman and the Green Goblin created more or less by the same accident which would have saved a lot of screen time by not having to set up the coincidence of Spiderman and his nemesis getting their powers at the same time on opposite sides of town.
I think Daredevil for all the faults it had did the best job of setting up its supervillians. “Here’s Bullseye. He’s a psychotic hitman with superhuman aim.” Boom, no backstory needed; necessary in movies that need to already deal with the setup of the hero and the defeat of the bad guy in 2 hours or less.
(not really a hijack since someone already started talking about movies being short ;))
Indeed… apart from the “Superman works alone” bit, in the third Bat-movie, Dick is planning to leave Wayne Manor, Bruce asks him if he plans to rejoin the circus, and indicates they ‘must be halfway to Metropolis by now’.
That’s not what he’s asking. He’s asking if “Batman & Robin” is in the same *continuity * as “Superman IV”, not if you can see Superman flying around in the background whenever the Batplane is in the air.
As I understand, Elektra’s getting her own movie (appeared in DAREDEVIL) and will be the same characer as in that film. Catwoman appeared in BATMAN RETURNS and will be in her own movie soon (doubt it will be the same continuity though).
Granted, they’re minor characters, but…
Once this comic book superhero movie trend starts to lose steam at the box office, the studios may well try to jump the shark and combine some storylines. I can see some attempt to bring Spiderman, Daredevil, and the Punisher into one film to spark flagging interest in the genre.
How else can one tell if two creative products share a universe of continuity, unless there are direct references?
Secondary characters.
Please tell me you’re joking about this. I thought that the handling of Spidey’s origin was a masterful adaptation of the original, with today’s boogieman, genetic manipulation, standing in for the great fear of his time, nuclear power/radiation.
I will agree that the ‘coincidence’ of them getting their powers is a stretch in the movie, but I think that, short of making the GG an existing character (don’t know a good way to make this happen without either under-powering him or introducing other super heroes), this was the best way to go about it.
I’ve not kept up with my comic books. The last Spidey stuff I read was the first Carnage run. The heyday of my collecting was the Hobgoblin’s intro, and the original symbiont suit. I don’t think that I’d do well with the rewriting that’s gone on in the last few years, though in some ways, I understand the need for it.
Hey- a Secret Wars movie, anyone? or Perhaps an Infinity Gauntlet trilogy or something?
Anybody?
Let me expand on my previous post. You can never be certain that any two works of fiction are in a mutually shared universe. The best you can hope for is for each to reference the other and for the creators to confirm a connection - that’s as sure as it gets.
Some interesting situations have arisen in “shared universes” - there is the famous Wold-Newton universe that combines many worlds of classical literature - but that’s a case of connecting coincidences and relying on the fact that these things don’t, at least, contradict one another.
We know that Superman’s monthly titles and Batman’s monthly titles take place in the DC Universe - they crossover, makes references, etc., constantly.
But sometimes, a connection can be a simple reference or homage - for example, one appearance of either Mr. Mxylptlk or the Impossible Man implied that the two were the same entity, bridging the Marvel and DC Universes. This was, of course, intended as a joke.
Slightly stronger connections sometime appear, but these are often one way… DC’s All-Star Squadron made reference to a famous Archaeologist - Professor Henry Jones - but Indy’s movies clearly don’t take place in a world of superheroes. Likewise, in (I believe) Detective Comics, there was once an appearance of a very old, wizened Sherlock Holmes. Clearly, in the DC Universe (at that time), Holmes had been a real historical figure. But the reverse isn’t true.
So, the only things we can use to make these connections are these references, and they can be tenuous or non-reciprocal. They can even be contradicted later on. (An early issue of Ultimate Spider-man had Peter Parker listing famous scientists - including Reed Richards - contradicted by the later introduction of a teenage Reed Richards whom Peter Parker couldn’t have heard of as a scientist at that time.)
So what we’ve got are these offhand references. Speculating based on what we know, I would say that no, they are not in the same universe… the Superman movies being in an analogue of the pre-Crisis Earth-Prime - where Superman arrived in the early 80’s, and is the first superhero of the world - whereas the Batman movies more closely resemble current DC continuity (especially th later ones) - the specific details are different, but one gets the impression there are other heroes out there.
Very few franchises will crossover, even with the same company’s characters. Actually, very few differing projects of the same character show continuity - a recent exception being the excellent MTV Spider-Man animated series, which seemed to build on the events of the first movie.
That’d be a direct reference - as the character would primarily belong to one title or the other. For example, Professor Emil Hamilton of STAR Labs, a former Superman supporting character - if he popped up in a Batman movie, then that would be a nod to Superman continuity.
Of course, even if he popped up in both movie franchises… played by the same person, we couldn’t conclusively determine the connection, but it’d be reasonably certain.
There’s at least one situation where this secondary character rule applies - the Supergirl movie had some supporting characters from the Superman series - while we can’t be certain it took place in the same reality as the Superman movies, it does seem very likely. But it’s still a direct reference.
As to licensing: most, if not all, of the films based on DC Comics characters are released by Warner Brothers… a subsidiary of Time/Warner… which owns DC Comics, as well as MAD Magazine.
Somehow, I don’t much think licensing fees are an issue.
Well, yes, and no. My understanding of copyrights is limited, so feel free to correct me.
First, Superman and Batman are owned by a specific subsidiary of the Time Warner corporation - and money does have to be transferred between the movie division and the comic book division for the use of said characters, else would it not be a violation of anti-trust laws?
Second, some characters may be wholly owned by DC Comics as far as comic books go, but they (DC/Warner) must seek the permission of the original creator or that creator’s estate to transfer the character to a new medium. Some financial recompense may be involved in that process.
But I’m not sure.
There is also a Reed Richards building at ESU (or whatever is the major university in the Ultimateverse) Bendis has said he has a way to make it all work, but I’ve yet to see him do it, unless these first couple of arcs are taking place a few years back.
In Ult Spider-Man, Pete was bitten on a field trip to Oscorp where they were testing animals with genetic manipulation, trying to create a new super-soldier. Osborn noticed what happened to Pete and tested it on himself using a sample of his own blood, theorizing if dna from a spider give a human super-spider powers, then dna from himself would give Osborn super-Osporn powers. Didn’t work.
BUT…it was a nice way to tie in the two origins, which I think was the point. John Byrne’s rejected Spider-Man: Chapter One did something similar with Doc Ock and Spider-Man, Ock being the radiology scientist that Pete went to see perform, when an acident irradiated the spider and fused Ock’s arms to Otto.
Back on topic, I can’t think of any other obvious clues that any of the comic book movies share a same universe (other than sequels of course). But there’s not too much to exclude the possibility either.
Cite?
It’s my understanding that most every comic book character from the days of Superman, et al, was created under ‘work for hire’ and thus are owned by the company lock, stock, and barrel.
Sorry, it was speculation. Looking back on it, I see I worded it badly.
One the matter of Marvel properties … X-Men, Hulk, Blade, Daredevil, Spider-Man … it is likely that they do not share continuity. Many of them are licensed to different film companies who probably have been given exclusive film rights to the character for a certain period.
Additionally, if I recall correctly, Daredevil and Spider-Man have a piece of evidence that strongly suggests separate universes - Daredevil supporting character Ben Urich, in the comics, worked at the Daily Bugle (IIRC) … something they explicitly changed in the Daredevil movie (IIRC, again). I’ve also heard scuttlebutt (sorry, no cite) that the Kingpin, despite being an occasional Spidey menace, won’t appear in any of the Spider-Man movies, as he’s been reserved for the Daredevil franchise.
I do so love Australian porn. 