Post by Timothy on May 17, 2008 12:12:41 GMT -5
From a Hollywood Reporter article entitled "Marvel's universal approach makes it a world apart from DC"
As an unabashed life-long DC fan, I would like to take the time to analyze the following article highlights from writer Boris Kit.
Which entails making films where none should exist, such as with "Ghost Rider," "Iron Fist," and "Black Panther."
DC Comics, and the parent corporation of Warner Brothers, "stumble" because they are concerned with something far greater than shilling terrible comic-based characters; they are concerned with creating artwork. The Watchmen, V For Vendetta, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. These are but a handful of stories which changed an industry; has Marvel contributed anything? No.
Before 1961, comic books featured heroes in relatively self-contained stories. What happened in a Batman comic had no impact on what happened in a Superman book. Even the events in DC Comics' best-selling title "Justice League of America" -- boasting the all-star lineup of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Flash, the Martian Manhunter and Green Lantern -- had no bearing on the individual books devoted to each superhero.
The philosophy at that point in time was for kids to be able to buy and read a Batman or Superman (or any other character for that matter) story and have it be a self-contained experience. With the advent of Marvel, the whining of characters like Peter Parker could continue indefinitely throughout the myriad line-up of stories.
That all changed when "Fantastic Four #1" was published in 1961, launching the modern Marvel Comics age with subsequent titles featuring the Hulk, Spider-Man, Thor, Iron Man, X-Men and Daredevil. Suddenly, heroes were popping up in one another's comic books, bantering, bellyaching and battling. More importantly, what happened in one book impacted another. If Spider-Man injured his arm helping the Fantastic Four fight Paste Pot Pete in an issue of "Fantastic Four," readers found Spidey swinging with a sling in the next issue of "The Amazing Spider-Man."
I'm glad that Marvel Comics' continuity between series made up for terrible continuity within individual comics. For example, in The Amazing Spider-Man #4, Spider-Man encounters the villain The Sandman for the first time at his old high school. However, instead of smooth storytelling, the transitions between panels take on a film characteristic known as a "jump cut," or instant change from scene to scene with no explanation or transition. One instant, Spider-Man is in a classroom evading Sandman, and the next he's in a gym with only a lethargic word balloon explaining to us that (Author's note; the following is paraphrased but close to the original statement) "It was a good thing I got out of that classroom and got into this gym.)
Marvel became "#1" in the 60's and early 70's because their stories were just like their audience; whiny and self-absorbed.
Considering that DC and Warners have only concentrated on two film franchises (Batman and Superman), yeah, that makes sense.
That's called creative control and it's something that calmer heads do with their property.
For a man who supposedly writes for a major Hollywood magazine, this man must have been asleep at Superman Returns. During Superman's reemergence, news stations reported sightings of the Man of Steel around the world, including Gotham.
Again, it's called "creative license." Sometimes it works and other times it doesn't; then again, I would much rather have artistic freedom than be shackled by an oppressive head of a comics studio.
The problem with that endorsement, however, is that it is an overly authoritarian one. Stan Lee is, without a doubt, one of the worst writers ever to be featured on the cover of a comic book. It takes a special kind of asshole to make fun of his own fans; case-in-point, the (continued) reference to Marvel's fan-base as "zombies" who would buy anything they shell out.
That was my take, so what do you guys think and why?
As an unabashed life-long DC fan, I would like to take the time to analyze the following article highlights from writer Boris Kit.
As Marvel embarks on transferring its universe of comics characters to the big screen...
Which entails making films where none should exist, such as with "Ghost Rider," "Iron Fist," and "Black Panther."
...it is determined to succeed where DC Comics and its corporate sibling Warner Bros. have stumbled. But then, Marvel always has been one step ahead of DC.
DC Comics, and the parent corporation of Warner Brothers, "stumble" because they are concerned with something far greater than shilling terrible comic-based characters; they are concerned with creating artwork. The Watchmen, V For Vendetta, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. These are but a handful of stories which changed an industry; has Marvel contributed anything? No.
Before 1961, comic books featured heroes in relatively self-contained stories. What happened in a Batman comic had no impact on what happened in a Superman book. Even the events in DC Comics' best-selling title "Justice League of America" -- boasting the all-star lineup of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Flash, the Martian Manhunter and Green Lantern -- had no bearing on the individual books devoted to each superhero.
The philosophy at that point in time was for kids to be able to buy and read a Batman or Superman (or any other character for that matter) story and have it be a self-contained experience. With the advent of Marvel, the whining of characters like Peter Parker could continue indefinitely throughout the myriad line-up of stories.
That all changed when "Fantastic Four #1" was published in 1961, launching the modern Marvel Comics age with subsequent titles featuring the Hulk, Spider-Man, Thor, Iron Man, X-Men and Daredevil. Suddenly, heroes were popping up in one another's comic books, bantering, bellyaching and battling. More importantly, what happened in one book impacted another. If Spider-Man injured his arm helping the Fantastic Four fight Paste Pot Pete in an issue of "Fantastic Four," readers found Spidey swinging with a sling in the next issue of "The Amazing Spider-Man."
I'm glad that Marvel Comics' continuity between series made up for terrible continuity within individual comics. For example, in The Amazing Spider-Man #4, Spider-Man encounters the villain The Sandman for the first time at his old high school. However, instead of smooth storytelling, the transitions between panels take on a film characteristic known as a "jump cut," or instant change from scene to scene with no explanation or transition. One instant, Spider-Man is in a classroom evading Sandman, and the next he's in a gym with only a lethargic word balloon explaining to us that (Author's note; the following is paraphrased but close to the original statement) "It was a good thing I got out of that classroom and got into this gym.)
The shared universe was one of the hallmarks of the Marvel universe. Dominant DC suddenly was squaresville, while Marvel was what the cool college kids kept in their dorms, and Marvel overtook DC as the No. 1 comics publisher.
Marvel became "#1" in the 60's and early 70's because their stories were just like their audience; whiny and self-absorbed.
"We are ... able to have characters pop up in each other's movies and make those movies more interesting and get visibility and promote our future films," Marvel Studios chairman David Maisel says.
That's something that Warners and DC have yet to master.
That's something that Warners and DC have yet to master.
Considering that DC and Warners have only concentrated on two film franchises (Batman and Superman), yeah, that makes sense.
Here is the problem: Warners lets its filmmakers dictate what happens in its superhero movies.
That's called creative control and it's something that calmer heads do with their property.
There's not a hint of the existence of Gotham City in "Superman Returns," for example, because Warners franchises have become filmmaker fiefdoms, where no one plays with each other.
For a man who supposedly writes for a major Hollywood magazine, this man must have been asleep at Superman Returns. During Superman's reemergence, news stations reported sightings of the Man of Steel around the world, including Gotham.
Worse, the filmmakers and executives take it upon themselves to make wholesale changes to DC's mythology. Witness the fact that Superman has a kid!
Again, it's called "creative license." Sometimes it works and other times it doesn't; then again, I would much rather have artistic freedom than be shackled by an oppressive head of a comics studio.
Marvel's cohesion in the 1960s was largely because of one man, Stan Lee, who wrote and edited almost all the books. Today, Marvel's film fibers are held together mostly by one man, Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige.
The problem with that endorsement, however, is that it is an overly authoritarian one. Stan Lee is, without a doubt, one of the worst writers ever to be featured on the cover of a comic book. It takes a special kind of asshole to make fun of his own fans; case-in-point, the (continued) reference to Marvel's fan-base as "zombies" who would buy anything they shell out.
That was my take, so what do you guys think and why?
Touché