Hollywood Reporter's "Marvel's universal approach a world apart from DC" article

[Spider-Man]

I saw this up today on The Hollywood Reporter.com (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/features/columns/film_reporter/e3i7e5a336a9153b9a5c0068b54a6876a08):


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.

Now, going on five decades later, Marvel is at it again.

At the end of the credits of the current blockbuster "Iron Man," there is a coda with Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, the head of a secret organization, SHIELD, inviting Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark to be part of the Avenger Initiative. Sit past the credits with a group of geeks and you'll hear gleeful titters of recognition.

Next, Stark will pop up in June in Universal's release of "The Incredible Hulk." Marvel more than hinted that Hulk, Fury and others will surface in the 2010 and 2011 releases of "Iron Man 2," "Thor" and "Captain America," leading up to "The Avengers," which will team all these heroes -- and hopefully the respective actors first creating them onscreen -- in one movie.

"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.

Click here (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/features/columns/film_reporter/e3i7e5a336a9153b9a5c0068b54a6876a08) for the rest of the article.

Comments?

[ShadowGUN]

Nice article. They are right about Warner letting its filmmakers dictate what happens in its superhero movies (as well in the CW show Smallville). I mean the movies make it seem as if Batman exist on Earth-1 and Superman on Earth-2. The only Superman reference in Batman movie was a line in "Batman & Robin"("This why Superman works alone").The WB really needs to keep an eye for their superheroes franchise quality especially the Superman franchise since that seem to be in worse condition (thank to Smallville and Superman Returns). Batman is doing great and TDK will prove it when it comes out. They really need to get their act together.

[Young Justice]

The only Superman reference in Batman movie was a line in "Batman & Robin"("This why Superman works alone").

Just to nitpick: In Batman Forever, after the Grayson's death, the Haley Circus was "halfway to Metropolis".

I'm maybe wrong, but there was a reference to Gotham City in Superman Returns, wasn't it?

[mr.happy]

Just to nitpick: In Batman Forever, after the Grayson's death, the Haley Circus was "halfway to Metropolis".

I'm maybe wrong, but there was a reference to Gotham City in Superman Returns, wasn't it?Yes, I think there was a throw-away reference to it, but nothing on the same magnitude as Tony Stark appearing to tease an upcoming Avengers movie.

[Young Justice]

Yes, I think there was a throw-away reference to it, but nothing on the same magnitude as Tony Stark appearing to tease an upcoming Avengers movie.

We can't even compare it. Marvel is building a coherent live action universe. DC is not even close. Maybe the WB Movie Executives could get to talk with Bruce Timm. Maybe it helps.

[Harlan_Phoenix]

It's not like DC maintained a long lasting animated continuity or anything.

[Knight]

Gotham City was seen on one of the tv screens in Superman Returns but other than that I agree. DC needs to take more control and grow their movie universe. Im glad marvel is smacking them in the face right now so maybe it will wake them up.

[Young Justice]

It's not like DC maintained a long lasting animated continuity or anything.

I don't know if you are joking but from BTAS until the end of the last season of JLU it went more than 10 years. I think this is long enough considering the animation media.

[Anarky]

I don't DC "taking" control because I doubt they really have any. From what I hear TimeWarner is a massive entity w/ many, many, MANY degrees of seperation amongst its subsidiaries. Each business unit will do its own thing irregardless of the impact on its "colleagues". It's as if they forget they all work for the same company. I compare TimeWarner and other monoliths to the solar system. It's all one galaxy but each planet, satellite, and other variables are adrift in space doing its own thing w/ little interaction w/ the other body masses.

[Wounded_Dragon]

Indeed. It's rather sad that WB has had all their properties under the same roof for years and their competitor beat them to it.

[Chiptooth]

I don't know if you are joking but from BTAS until the end of the last season of JLU it went more than 10 years. I think this is long enough considering the animation media.

Not to mention that it that time the DCAU spanned AT LEAST six series - B:TAS/TNBA, S:TAS, JL/JLU, Static Shock, Batman Beyond and The Zeta Project. But of course, WB seems to just as soon write off the contributions of Timm and Co. as strictly cartoon stuff.

Come to think of it, I think blaming the filmmakers themselves still reeks of short-sightedness - despite how badly he fumbled the ball, Schumacher was essentially still trying to follow the studio's edict of brightening up the Batman franchise, plus the man did have slightly more awareness of comics lore than Singer, even though it hinged on the wackier corners of Pre-COIE (the ****ing FLORONIC MAN appears in B&R, fer cryin' out loud! Alter-ego only, but c'mon!!!). I tend to shoulder the blame squarely on the higher-ups at WB; they've had virtually no understanding or care for the value of DC's more iconic characters ever since they told the Salkinds to forget about bringing in any other Superman villains from the comics outside of Luthor and Zod...and then followed that up with the glorious decision to entrust the Superman franchise to Jon Peters, who pretty much professed his hatred for the source material from the get-go.

[Mad Monkey 7]

The directors of the DC films are also a problem. Chris Nolan want his Batman to be realstic thrus it would be silly to see Superman with his Batman.

[Hanshotfirst113]

I'm maybe wrong, but there was a reference to Gotham City in Superman Returns, wasn't it?

Yes, during the sequence in which Superman is show going around the world, the report rapid-fire states "sightings in Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York, Chicago, Gotham, Paris, London, Beijing," etc.


It's not like DC maintained a long lasting animated continuity or anything.

True, but that never enjoyed the same level of commercial success.


The directors of the DC films are also a problem. Chris Nolan want his Batman to be realistic, thus it would be silly to see Superman with his Batman.

Well, Nolan did what he though was best for the character, and for my money, he was totally right. It was his job to make a good movie, not make a commercial for a Justice League film.

[Old Guy]

The WB really needs to keep an eye for their superheroes franchise quality

I don't think WB cares because they have other movies to make. The difference between DC and Marvel is that DC is owned by WB while Marvel is not owned by anyone so it can work with various studios.

[Mad Monkey 7]

Yes, during the sequence in which Superman is show going around the world, the report rapid-fire states "sightings in Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York, Chicago, Gotham, Paris, London, Beijing," etc.



True, but that never enjoyed the same level of commercial success.



Well, Nolan did what he though was best for the character, and for my money, he was totally right. It was his job to make a good movie, not make a commercial for a Justice League film.


Agreed but Nolan could still fit characters into this films with his style and views. A question cameo could work for example or Clark Kent as a reporter in Gotham.

[Mikintosh]

(thank to Smallville and Superman Returns).

Superman Returns was fine and what did Smallville ever do to you? It's represented the franchise better than Lois & Clark ever did.

[James]

I don't know if you are joking but from BTAS until the end of the last season of JLU it went more than 10 years. I think this is long enough considering the animation media.

He was being sarcastic, pointing out that DC has successfully done what Marvel is being currently credited for.

I will say that Marvel is pulling off a far harder job. Intertwining cartoons made by the same team isn't too difficult, pulling high cost movies under the same umbrella takes scope.

The big problem - from my perspective - carries a deep irony. DC is owned by Warners, meaning they have an immediate tie when making films of their comics. In theory this sounds great, but when the movie arm is stronger than the comic arm, it means the filmmaker has a stronger executive power.

As I recall, with Marvel, they can go out and negotiate deals with studios on their own terms. Being they are not part of the same body, they have more swing in defining a deal that suits the comic corp rather than interests of the filmmaker.

A simplistic overview, but I think the greater control Marvel wields from its output comes from being more free agent with their film arm. When you are firmly in the claw of one studio, your ability to dictate becomes less.

[Young Justice]

A simplistic overview, but I think the greater control Marvel wields from its output comes from being more free agent with their film arm. When you are firmly in the claw of one studio, your ability to dictate becomes less.

I completely agree. I think this happens because the WB movie execs never have taken comics seriously. They only think of DC as a tool to create movie franchises.

About the realism being one of the problems of an integrated live action DC universe, I completely disagree. BB was not realistic, he was grounded in reality. A story could have fantastic elements and still be grounded in reality. This concept is how a real world would react in a presence of a fantastic element. A lot of the best comic series ever written were grounded in reality: Dark Knight Returns, Kingdom Come, Marvels, Watchmen. I'm just mentioning the ones who have super powered beings on it.

[Ed Liu]

I think the author of the original article is being incredibly sloppy by casually asserting the following:


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."

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.

He's not explicitly saying so, but his position is that it was the shared universe that made the Marvel characters cool and more popular than DC, and I don't think that's true. I think that's one reason, but I'd also say that the idea of superheroes that had more realistic (if not "real") problems and the generally much more anarchic and less stuffy attitude of Marvel was a lot more important than the shared universe in making the Marvel superheroes more popular than their DC counterparts. Given that, I can't follow through to his conclusion that incorporating a joint universe will be the key to Marvel's movie success.

Over and above this objection, he also seems to be assuming that the other Marvel movies will be as successful as Iron Man, which is an absolutely terrible assumption to make. If one of the upcoming movies tanks badly, this same analyst will write another article about how tying all the movies together was a terrible idea because the failure scuttled all the work and planning for Avengers, flushing all that money away for nothing.

Finally, I am still unconvinced that joint universe movies are guaranteed moneymakers. The economics is very much not in a team movie's favor. This is not true for a team-up comic book, because the incremental costs of making a team book are minor compared to a solo book, so the profit margin isn't any more difficult for those. A team superhero movie is going to be a LOT more expensive than a single hero movie, and I'm not at all convinced that it will be able to recoup that larger investment easily.

To me, it all just seems like another Hollywood analyst who doesn't know what he's talking about starting with a conclusion and then finding or fabricating "proof" to support it, while ignoring all the other contradictory evidence (see, "2-D animation is dead").

-- Ed

[Jeff Harris]

I don't know how "unified" the Marvel movies are going to be if the X-Men Origins movies aren't linked to them (certainly S.H.I.E.L.D. could be interested [invested?] in Weapon X and Stark Enterprises could have been a supplier of the machinery used) or they could at least pretend to involve the Spider-Man mythos in them either (Oscorp could equally be interested in that project as well, maybe a young Norman Osborn was a part of it [damn continuity]). I think the Marvel Studios films will be linked, but I wonder if they could link the future X-Men and Spider-Man movies as well.

[Palin Dromos]

Finally, I am still unconvinced that joint universe movies are guaranteed moneymakers. The economics is very much not in a team movie's favor. This is not true for a team-up comic book, because the incremental costs of making a team book are minor compared to a solo book, so the profit margin isn't any more difficult for those. A team superhero movie is going to be a LOT more expensive than a single hero movie, and I'm not at all convinced that it will be able to recoup that larger investment easily.

I too would be worried about the financial return on a film that will clearly be high-budget and thus high risk. But then I think about the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy and I feel less worried.
For years people said those books were inherently un-filmable due to (amongst other things) the cost of creating the world of Middle Earth.
With the appropriate financial backing, and a titan of a director an Avengers movie (and even a Justice League movie) can be done. I really think that it will come down to having someone at the helm who can fight the necessary fights to pull of his/her vision.

[Harlan_Phoenix]

I don't know if you are joking but from BTAS until the end of the last season of JLU it went more than 10 years. I think this is long enough considering the animation media.

Sarcasm is not your friend this day.

[SAMaine]

Well, I guess they will link the next Spider-Man and X-Men movies to this continuity, if they legally can. Just not as much as Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America, and Ant-Man.

[TheVileOne]

Nope. That can't work since they are separate licenses as live action movies.

[Aldrius]

Don't you think you're all jumping the gun just a little bit? (Or rather, don't you think this reviewer is?)

The studio execs may be planning to make an Avengers movie in 2015 or whenever, but who's to even say all the actors they've gotten to play the various avengers will even be available?

[Master Moron]

Not to mention that it that time the DCAU spanned AT LEAST six series - B:TAS/TNBA, S:TAS, JL/JLU, Static Shock, Batman Beyond and The Zeta Project. But of course, WB seems to just as soon write off the contributions of Timm and Co. as strictly cartoon stuff.

Come to think of it, I think blaming the filmmakers themselves still reeks of short-sightedness - despite how badly he fumbled the ball, Schumacher was essentially still trying to follow the studio's edict of brightening up the Batman franchise, plus the man did have slightly more awareness of comics lore than Singer, even though it hinged on the wackier corners of Pre-COIE (the ****ing FLORONIC MAN appears in B&R, fer cryin' out loud! Alter-ego only, but c'mon!!!). I tend to shoulder the blame squarely on the higher-ups at WB; they've had virtually no understanding or care for the value of DC's more iconic characters ever since they told the Salkinds to forget about bringing in any other Superman villains from the comics outside of Luthor and Zod...and then followed that up with the glorious decision to entrust the Superman franchise to Jon Peters, who pretty much professed his hatred for the source material from the get-go.

Wait, so it's the higher ups at DC who are responsible for not having a decent supervillain and Superman Returns? So, that means that whoever directs the next Superman movie, it will still suck?