What is the future for Marvel/DC movies?

Spider-Man, X-Men and the Avengers will all continue. Not sure about the Fantastic Four. Justice League will continue. Likely Superman and Batman will as well.

The reason why I am not sure that Fantastic Four movies will continue is because the last one did poorly at the box-office and Fantastic Four comics are not being made anymore.

If the rights of Fantastic Four and eventually X-Men are given back to Marvel Studios, they will probably do a better job then 20th Century Fox did. (IMO).

DC is going with it's DC Extended Universe and both Man of Steel and Suicide Squad could be considered a Superman and Batman film, respectively. Justice League is going to at least have one sequel.

Theyll continue to drown the public with them until they gain fear and reach for a savior. Then the skies will become gray once again and clot out the sunshine forcing it to repeat itself like a bad omen trapped in a cycle of despair.

Hopefully Marvel gets Xmen back and we see some reboots of the xmen franchise. It would be fantastic to see characters properly cast, especially Wolverine and maybe we could get a real Weapon X movie, and then maybe we could get an AOA series. Id really like to see them reboot the animated movies and stick with whoever has been doing the more recent one's. The Wolverine vs Hulk, Spiderwoman, etc. and then of course the motion comics are awesome.

DC, they're fucked. Batman is the only redeeming franchise they have and this new one, while it has a solid design, IMO will simply be them attempting to recreate what Nolan did and fail. The Flash tv show is actually pretty good and i dont know why becasue at the same time, its not that good... kinda weird. The animated movies they do a very good job with. As from these things the only DC movie or show that really has any promise is Preacher.

The two publishers not mention here are Image and Dark Horse, both have a few movies coming out and both have some promise. More-so with Image and Spawn. If Todd is involved (which he is) and they get the story right, Spawn could potentially be one of the best comic movies out there. I dont know how many of you remember the HBO series, but it was amazing. As for Dark Horse, from what i have heard Fox i think, bought the rights to Grendel. Which is an awesome comic.

Marvel is going to keep doing what they've been doing and crank out a lot of movies, most of which are entertaining, and a few are even great. Hopefully their Netflix series continue to be excellent, because imo while not being as flashy as the movies, they are of higher quality from a story point of view. Luke Cage, Jessica Jones, and Daredevil (especially the season with Punisher) have all been really, really great shows.

DC...DC is another story. I really enjoy DC animated films and shows because they are a good foil to Marvel; where Marvel is "epic" and "cool", DC tends to be a bit more lighthearted and, well...comic. Not to say DC can't be serious or dark, but I think when it comes to their movies they try way way way too hard. They need to be more true to the source material, while also identifying the strengths of their successes (specifically, The Flash series) and build on that.

As I said in a different thread, Marvel is the cool jock, DC is the endearing band nerd. DC should not try to be the athlete, and Marvel should not try to be the artist.

@kod: is the Spawn series on HBO good? I finally got HBO GO on my TV and I was browsing the options and saw it on there. Was thinking of watching it but then remembered the Spawn movie and was like "Nooooooooope.

Would love another Spawn movie, with that said. The comic is so cool; I never read comics as a kid but a friend did and Spawn was his favorite, and what little I read of them I really enjoyed.

Oh yah, its amazing. Straight from the comics, its simply an animated version of Spawn 1-30.

I could potentially see the Fantastic 4 rights going back to Marvel if not for the fact that Fox has the movie rights. I could definitely see Fox being stubborn enough to hold onto the rights just on the off chance that they eventually turn the property into a huge hit, and Fox is doing well enough that they can afford to occasionally lose money on the property in order to obtain the rights. Another company might realize that they have a turd on their hands, or that they have no idea how to handle the property, and ditch it so that they're not losing any more money on it. Not Fox though. I don't see the Fantastic Four movie rights changing hands as long as Fox still owns them.

M-Men rights DEFINITELY aren't going anywhere. Not a chance in hell. Again, Fox. Also, unlike the Fantastic Four movies, the X-Men movies are actually highly successful. I'm personally not a big fan of the X-movies myself, but I've got to admit that they make a LOT of money for Fox. So Fox has zero incentive to let go of the rights. With the Fantastic Four, the rights reverting back to Marvel is a "well, at least it could happen" scenario. With the X-Men though, not a chance.

@kod: no way, I need to watch this.

Eh Marvel makes some good popcorn movies but I prefer the darker tone of DC.

I like the DC animated films, but their current line of big screen films has been utterly disappointing. Just atrocious and shameful - especially after how good the Nolan Batman trilogy was. The new DC universe has been abysmal to date. I'm hoping they can get their act together. Holding out hope for justice league. Maybe Flash can save them.

I would love to see Marvel get the rights to X-Men and Fantastic Four back. As long as they keep making excellent movies like they have been so far in the MCU then I'd be happy.

The problem with the "darker tone" is that most comics or characters don't fit this tone. The Dark Knight does, Batman does not (you have to know the comics to distinguish the two) but then the rest of the DC universe, aside from Lobo and Preacher, are not dark or brooding comics or characters. This is why the new superman, BvS and SS were all so bad. These characters are not supposed to be portrayed in a darker manner and its really lazy and absurd planning by whoever is deciding these things. They decided it worked with Nolan's Dark Knight, thus it must work with everything else and that is simply not the case. This is actually where i give Marvel a lot of credit. They have kept the tone of the comics and the characters actually resemble the characters in the comics. Sometimes the movies can be darker, most of te time not, its not an unnecessary prerequisite like with DC.

I don't see the DC movies getting any better. They will keep this darker tone, which will do nothing but changer characters that they are already having a very hard time writing for the big screen, many who people don't care about anyway... so... ya. "Dark movies" done by committee is possibly one of the worst ideas they could come up with.

@kod: Batman can certainly be portrayed dark. Also superheroes are constantly reinvented in comics.

Any character can be portrayed as "dark", its just a matter of if its effective and gets the character across. With Batman..... not really. This is why the Batman movies that do have a darker tone are all based on The Dark Knight, not Batman. Its the same character but they are two very different interpretations.

Going back to DC, they are not "reinventing" these characters. They are taking characters who should not be written in a dark manner and writing them as such. And as a result we end up laughing at these movies because of their stupidity. The fact is DC hired the wrong people to do DC movies. They should have brought in the people doing the cartoons, because those are actually good.

Marvel movies will continue rolling in cash while DC movies keep struggling.

LOL the gymnastics involved in that.

Lots and lots of money

What gymnastics?

They are simply following the comics as best as they can and if they are doing this they cant make them "dark' in tone or they will be a disaster..... how many more times does one need to see these results before understanding what is going wrong for DC, but not Marvel. AKA, following the tone of the comics creates a successful movie.... Its not hard.

GOTG is not a dark comic, the characters are not dark, the stories are not dark, so when they did the movie, they made it light hearted yet an action filled adventure.

Superman is a ridiculous character, he is essentially the fat kid we all knew on the playground that kept adjusting his powers to be all powerful. In the comics he works because he is in equally ridiculous situations and fighting equally ridiculous characters. While the stakes may be high, they are light comics not meant to be taken too seriously. While im not a fan of the original superman movies, repeating this is why they worked and the new ones dont.

X-Men, generally not a dark series. Some stories are, some are not. Fox's problem is they never took these tone differences into account and kind of made them neutral. This includes the Wolverine movies which can go both ways.

Of course the perfect example that highlights this issue is Deadpool. Deadpool is a darker character, he is also a comedic character... hes dark comedic character, that is his tone and its what makes him unique and him work as a character. Fox attempted to make him a darker, more ridiculous and serious character and then tossed him into the fake Weapon X story and what happened? It was a disaster, whereas someone who understands the character picked him up and created a movie that emphasized those tones and traits and its possibly the best superhero movie made.

Other comparisons would be the Flash tv show versus the Justice League movie... he looks like a joke in that movie. Aquaman... come on... we dont need a "dark" story around a guy who communicates with puffer fish. And as mentioned by myself and others, the DC cartoons get things very right, where as the movies just cant seem to and it looks like its because of this tonal shift in an attempt to mimic The Dark Knights success. When they simply dont understand what made that trilogy great.

Shocker right? When you decide to take well written comics and creative characters, and make them into movies, keeping the characters the same tends to be the difference between success and failure.

Oh yah. Im shocked at how few people have seen that series. I remember when the comic movies started coming out and how bad they were and then all i could think of was how well HBO did Spawn and how amazing i know comic movies/series can be.

And reminder, it is a series, 3 full seasons. I cant remember if every episode is a half hour or hour, but all seasons are on youtube at, at least 720p. Im not sure if there are any 1080 uploads, but whatever, 720 is good enough for an animation.

Actually, I disagree with this very much. I'd wager that most people watching these TV shows and movies are not comic books readers and are only superficially aware of the characters, if that. John Q Public isn't giving these movies a bad reception because they aren't following the tone of the comics, since chances are he doesn't know the tone of the comics in the first place. Instead, John Q Public is assessing these movies as movies. And he thinks the movies suck.

Deqadpool? Come on, Deadpool isn't one of the BIG characters like Batman, Superman, or the X-Men. He's not someone that the average Joe would learn about unless he was involved in the comic book scene. Do you REALLY think the average person praising the Deadpool movie was intimately familiar with the Deadpool comics and gave the movie high marks because it was faithful to the Deadpool comics? Granted, the comic book fan is gonna complain that the movie Deadpool doesn't fit the tone of the comics, because he's a fan looking for fan service. That doesn't apply to the average movie goer, though. The average movie goer likely had no idea who Deadpool even was before the movie came out. They like the movie because it was an enjoyable movie.

Or heck, how about Guardians of the Galaxy. Everyone seemed to love that, but mainstream audiences never even heard of the comic book and certainly don't know whether or not the movie fit the tone of the comics. What they do know is that the movie was a lot of fun, so it's irrelevant whether or not the movies fit the tone of the comics.

Most people watching these movies are not watching them from the role of Comic Book Fan. Most people just want to see an entertaining and well-made movie. They couldn't care less whether or not the movie fits the tone of the comics. If you make one of these kinds of movies and everyone hates it, chances are that has almost nothing to do with it deviating from the tone of the comic. It's much more likely that it just wasn't a very good movie.

This is not even remotely close to what i touched on.

I never even mentioned what movie goers may or may not know about a character, comic or story line. I spoke on the characters and stories themselves and why and how they work and why and how they are being made into movies. Which is because they are successful... why are they successful? Because of good writing, comics are finally recognized as having good authors, creative and qualities stories. When you change that character, the tone of the character, the tone of the story,, it changes the writing and you go from certainty to questionable and more often than not, bad. Again, as mentioned before, simply look at all the successful comic movies. It does not matter if the average viewer knows this or not, but those movies tend to keep very close to the original source material.

Deadpool, is a successful comic. Its a successful comic because of the quality of writers who have hashed out this original and unique character and situations for him to be in. Given its a successful comic due to its quality, its reasonable to say that if applied in the same way, it would be a successful movie as well.... and it was.... just like all the other successful comic movies are the ones that stick as close as they can to the comics. And the failures, tend to deviate. Its no different from a good novel being translated to a movie.

I dont know... i thought i was pretty clear on this even when i never mentioned anything about how many movie goers also read the comics and if it was or was not an issue, but apparently not....

Clearing this up should take care of the post.

Again, the movie adaptations don't suck because the tone changed, they suck because of crappy writing, crappy directing, crappy acting, crappy etc.

There's zero reason why you shouldn't be able to take an established property, change the tone, and then come out with a good movie that has a different tone than the original comic.

Saying that an adaptation stunk because the tone was changed implies that having that tone is the ONLY way to do the story and not have it suck. Which I vehemently disagree with. A good writer should be able to craft an entertaining and compelling story regardless of the change in tone. That's kind of his job.

Again, these adaptations didn't suck because the tone was different than the comic books, they suck and are widely disliked because they aren't very good movies.

Of course they do. Again, its a not a coincidence that the bad adaptations change the tone of a character or story. See, here's the thing you're not considering. Could they take a character, change that characters tone and make a good movie around that character and change? Yes. Why don't they? Because they are not re-writing characters and stories. Which is what it would take in order to make this different tone work. Its not like we're seeing these characters in original and new stories, these are all ripped from comics and generally successful andn good stories.... if you change something as dramatic as the tone of the character within that story, it will affect that story..... so the reality is, just like every adaptation of anything, you cant take a story and character and then make tonal changes to one, without addressing how that changes everything. If you do this, youll end up with the very long list of shitty movies based on novels or comics that have attempted to do this.

But there are plenty of reasons why this simply does not happen, with the main being that when this is attempted, they still try to keep the original content/source material without realizing that needs to change too. Which doing all of this, very much defeats the purpose of doing a comic book adaptation in the first place.

@kod: Do you have any idea how many times people have successfully done variations of public domain stories such The Odyssey or Romeo and Juliet, with the tone ranging from comedic to depressingly dark? The only reason that doesn't happen with stuff like superhero comics is because of rights. As in, typically only one company has the rights to make such movies, and the people they hire put out a crappy movie. There is no competition, you don't get multiple people tackling the story, because of legalities.

Again, changing the tone works for other stories just fine. We've seen it happen. So explain to me why this for some reason can't work for comic book stories, when it works just fine for other stories?

Again, if you look at the most common criticisms of poorly-received superhero movies, you will ALWAYS see people citing a bunch of complaints that have nothing to do with the change of tone. Stuff like bad acting, a horrible and nonsensical script, poor pacing, and ugly cinematography. Again, people tend to judge movies as movies, you only see the hardcore fanboys complaining about how "it's not like the comic book!" And every one of these unsuccessful superhero movies failed because of things that ANYONE (whether they were aware of the source material or not) can see is a problem.

And yes, in any well constructed story, making one big change is very likely to affect the story and require other changes in order to still have the story work. The thing is, a good writer is supposed to know this, and do what is required to make the story work. The fact that they don't do this kind of indicates that they aren't good writers. Which is no surprise. Historically, superhero movies have been in the realm of B-level movies. Just like video game movies, no one really expected them to ever be good, they're just another paycheck and a way to rake in some merchandising dollars. Aside from maybe one A-list actor to draw in audiences (the actors being the most visible part of the movies), very few companies are wasting their best writers and directors on a video game or comic book movie. These movies, especially the less successful ones are just not well-written. That is why they fail.

Ah just saw this response.

It's not the tone that makes the movies successful. One can take Marvel characters much darker and still have a well done movie. Likewise if the writers aren't good the light tone would end up with a weak movie. Most people that see movies are NOT comic book readers. They like action movies and right now superhero movies are the go to source. As long as the movies are good and the public doesn't get bored with them....they'll sell. But hey at any moment the perception might shift and then Marvel movies will sell less. Without doing anything different.

I'm not sure why you're on tone. The Nolan Batman movies were dark and the were well received. Hell the 60s TV show was campy as hell and that is STILL fondly remembered or rewatched by people today not alive in the 60s. Two different tones. Two successful products.

Deadpool was successful because it was an entertaining movie. The general public didn't know who Deadpool was. It was another comic movie getting high marks and good word of mouth so they saw it as well. If you think comic fans are making the movies successful....you're wrong. There aren't enough of them.

You made up your mind before seeing the movie. How close minded of you. I like darker stories. I see Marvel as well. But it's not as satisfying to me. And I'm NOT the only one that likes dark movies. If you want cuddly comedy then stick with Marvel.

@kod: Oh, hey, I didn't see you mention Preacher. Just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Season 1? Actually, for the most part, I hated it. Cassidy was the only remotely likable main character (and he's a freaking bloodsucking vampire), most of the humor fell flat, and worst of all, the show was dull and slow as a sack of bricks. Granted, supposedly the last complaint was due to AMC not allowing any kind of decent budget for the first season, and things COULD get a lot more fun now that the gang has finally hit the road. But I was NOT impressed.

Anyway, I'm just curious what you thought about it.

Okay, so you're clearly having a very hard time understanding what is being said, so ill simply highlight some things and respond as quickly as possible...... When you attempt to cite things like Romeo and Juliet, you're failing to mention that the "good" ones, are completely re-written. They dont take the original, change one aspect of it or a slight tonal change for one main character and then keep the rest the same. They dramatically change everything so that all the pieces fit. Which you're apparently failing to realize is my point. These comic movies, wont be good if they simply change the overall tone, without changing everything else to match. Tell me, can you find an exception here? No, you cant. Because every example you can cite, we will see dramatically rewritten characters, situations, etc.

No. It does not happen because they are the first to-movie interpretations of these comics. So they are attempting to be as close as possible to the original source material. What ends up happening is you have directors who come in and want to impose their own style and the wrong director to the wrong story and character will create a bad movie. One thing Marvel should be applauded for is how well they have matched directors with characters and stories. DC, is and should be, shunned for how poorly they have done this.

There are "rights" or legalities that stand in the way of properly altering characters and story if the tone is changing. The issue is above and the fact that these movies are a horse by committee. I think you're also failing to understand how these movies are produced. Both DC and Marvel have groups dedicated to deciding the direction these movies go in and how they are done and they do these movies through companies they are subsidiaries of (WB and Disney).

I feel like this is really the crux of the issue and even though ive addressed it like five times now, i feel one more time, specifically devoted to this, should be enough.

No, we do not see this work. Every instance you want to cite, we find complete rewrites that are generally centered around changing the tone or are at least follow the same path as the new, established tone.

When we see say... a modern romantic comedy about R&J and it is "successful" and "good (the story does not fail), we see a rewriting of the main characters, the situations, the secondary characters, the environment, the scenario, dialog, everything. IF comic movies are to change the tone of a character or story and not have these obvious problems most DC movies are currently plagued with, this is what needs to happen. You cant change the tone like this, while not altering everything else and expect it to work. Is it possible it can work? Sure, one out of a million times it might actually work. The other 999,999 times, everything needs to be properly adjusted to fit these alterations.

If you want we can go over the list of generally considered bad comic movies and we can go over how and why a tonal shift created a bad script for an already proven good and successful story and how if they are changing this tone, they could have altered the rest of the story match and it would have been better.

You do understand that the tone of a movie is pretty much its foundation right? And that you cannot simply alter the tone of these stories and characters without altering everything else about to match.... its the foundation man.... why do you think this is what DC is now almost solely focusing on changing?

http://deadline.com/2016/05/dc-films-batman-v-superman-geoff-johns-jon-berg-1201758630/

http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1554169/the-dc-extended-universe-is-undergoing-a-big-tonal-change

http://www.polygon.com/2016/9/8/12853498/dc-batman-superman-geoff-johns-zack-snyder

http://io9.gizmodo.com/geoff-johns-on-the-future-of-dc-movies-relax-were-cha-1786394751

Im not sure why youre not getting this, but everyone has seemed to identify the very obvious problem here and DC and Marvel (WB and Disney) have and are spending hundreds of millions to fix it, with one company having already fixed it by address this..... so im not sure why you seem to think that you know better in this situation than everyone else or why you're attempting to argue against the obvious.

I suggest you go back to my comments about superman and the failure that is attempting to make him a differently toned character. If this along the rest of what ive highlighted, and the single fact that we saw Marvel and now DC address this issue (and Marvel ended up fixing their problem) then i really don't know what else to say.

FYI your comments about Superman. Christopher Reeve made Clark Kent a total asshat and THAT was acceptable? Hate his portrayal of Kent. That's a tonal switch but it succeeded. They can obviously shift tone successfully.

@kod: "IF comic movies are to change the tone of a character or story and not have these obvious problems most DC movies are currently plagued with, this is what needs to happen."

So...they need to do that.

Rarely have comic book movie adaptations EVER been straight adaptations of an existing story. They are almost ALWAYS changing things so much that it for all intents and purposes a completely original story. Even if the movie version was inspired by certain comic stories, they are almost always altering things and swapping stuff out and switching out characters or adding new characters or subtracting some characters or re-envisioning characters in a new way. These movies almost always ARE a complete rewrite, a wholly original story.

There are of course notable exceptions. Stuff like Watchmen is (more or less) a straightforward adaptation of the source material (as much as possible, given the time constraints of the movie). As far the standard superhero movie, not the case. The Marvel MCU is completely independent from the comics. Captain America Civil War was not a direct adaptation of the Civil War comics, don't expect Infinity War to be a straight adaptation either. These are completely new stories that take elements from the source material. That's it. They are ALREADY making massive changes and crafting new stories, so there is NOTHING stopping them from making changes that fit the tone of the movie.

You are also neglecting that even within an established comic book series, it is not uncommon for many of them to change tone for a given story arc. Many comic book series will absolutely have an overall dark tone and then lighten things up a bit for a few issues, and vice versa. If that can happens even in the comic books, then why exactly can't that happen with a movie adaptation? And no, a tonal shift cannot create a bad story, you write a good story that works with that particular tone. That's a writer's JOB. They may have certain parameters that their boss requires them to stick to, but the job of a good writer is to write a good story given what he has to work with.

So, hopefully you can simply look at my responses to the other guy where i highlight the problems with these movies, that are mostly DC and early Marvel. But i will respond to a few things here simply to clarify and ensure you do get whats being said.

Both of you have now decided to mention this thing about the average viewer not reading the comics... this is not the point and ive never said or focused on this nor would i be naive enough to think this. But this and the rest of it, all kind of comes down to this misinterpretation you two seem to have because you're not applying a simple truth:

The movies are nothing but copies of already written and established events, characters, tones, etc. They are successful as comics because the writers got all of these pieces to fit. When we see a successful comic movie, what do we see? We see them stick to everything from the comics as closely as possible. When we see a bad or failed movie, what do we see? Them changing one major aspect, more often than not the tone (BvS, Superman, Green Lantern, F4, F4 again, The Amazing Spider, etc.).

These are not creative works or original content from the writers and directors.... they are not even interpretations. They are written and designed to be direct copies of the comics with few changes. Now a character change or event change here and there, generally wont affect the outcome. But something as big as a tonal shift in a character or story, can go as far as completely negating the established story they are attempting to reproduce. Often the best case scenario is the story or character simply stop making sense.

The impression im getting is that you and the other guy, seem to think that these movies are some kind of original content, and theyre not. None of the comic movies are original stories, they are all taken from established stories. When doing this, you cant change dramatic aspects of the story or the story itself will change, and unless you focus on altering everything needed to make that change make sense, its going to be end up hurting the movie. And this is something we just don't see done properly and its not the fault of anyone except the producers who decide to bring in creative directors who want to put their fingerprint on a movie, but don't have any kind of creative control over the story because company X, simply wants to mimic the comic.

It does not matter if the public knew of him or not and no again ive never said anything about comic fans making movies successful.

The movie was entertaining and successful as a story telling device, because it mimicked the successful story telling device comic book, as much as possible.

The only real role comic fans have in this is basically showing Marvel and DC, which comics are well written stories with well written characters. After these demonstrations the company, marvel or dc, decides which movies to start production on. And as we've seen, again, the movies that tend to be the best, are also the one's that don't make any dramatic changes... the only connection this has to comic fans is that the comic fans and movie goers both recognize a good story and quality story telling device.

Didnt i already go over this? And didnt i already show that this was actually a great example of what im saying?

The old Batman series is taken directly from Batman comics. A fairly light hearted, not taking itself too seriously, detective in a blue and grey spandex suit. He was the detective comics Batman.

The Nolan movies, are taken from Frank Miller's The Dark Knight.

Hopefully i can demonstrate to you the difference between th interpretations of these Batman series simply through covers.

So simply by looking at the difference in these comic covers, you should be able to get the tonal difference and different interpretations of this character, that the tv show and movies are based on, yes? I mean..... can we just agree that one is a light action/adventure/comedy 60s serial and the other is a very dark, grim and serious story. Do we need to dive into this further?

I think you're thinking that the show and movies themselves are creative interpretations of Batman, when they're not. They are taken from various interpretations of Batman and the successful and good one's, did not alter that interpretations foundation/base.

And as far as Batman goes we can even demonstrate these things with the 90s movie series by itself. A series that based Batman off The Dark Knight, but then got out of control.

They were reasonably good up until the 3rd and 4th movies. With these they attempted to keep Batman the same but they brought in characters and situations from older Batman series... Not the Dark Knight. This includes Robin who does not fit with The Dark Knight. But more importantly we saw this with the bad guys, Mr.Freeze, Riddler, Ivy, etc. Comedic, non-serious characters that have their role in a Batman movie, but not a gritty/serious Dark Knight. The series itself would have never been good had they attempted to take TDK and add in stupid cartoonish figures like Mr.Freeze and the Riddler, instead of starting off with the Joker and Catwoman. Characters who can tonally fit TDK.

If a movie is good then a movie is good, no one should give a shit if its dark or not, being dark does not make it good.... what are you a goth? An edgy 19 year old? Who cares if a movie is "dark"?

The point is not that ive made up my mind. Its that to take an established story and an established character who is generally light hearted and not to be taken seriously. And to shift this to a darker story and tone, requires a complete rewrite. Something we don't see done with these movies, and for reasons you apparently refuse to understand (because they end up not being the comic, rather loose interpretations of and that is NOT what DC or Marvel are attempting to do...ever.).However you want to take this is whatever i dont care. I was simply explaining why the DC movies are such failures while the Marvel movies and the DC cartoons (and a handful of tv shows) are successful. If you like or accept the explanation, whatever, but it is the factual explanation for most of the these movies and everyone seems to recognize this, including Marvel and DC who have and are investing hundreds of millions into fixing it. Links in my post above that show DC recognizing the problem they have created (which you should already recognize after the SS movie and its changes and what they said about that) with the tone of movies, and how they are now attempting to solve it.

"The movies are nothing but copies of already written and established events, characters, tones, etc."

Wrong. Very rarely are movie adaptations of comic book material DIRECT translations of the comic books. If nothing else, very huge changes ALREADY have to be made to fit a single movie time slot (since most comic book stories aren't tailor-made for a 100% faithful comic-to-movie transition. Furthermore, several of these movie adaptations are also bogged down by movie rights. As in, the studio CAN'T do a straight copy since many of the characters in the original material are legally off limits. In such cases, they craft a NEW story, eliminate critical characters as necessary, and make the required changes to make that change work.

If one can do THAT and still come out with a compelling and interesting story, then one can change the tone and then write a compelling story around the tonal shift.

Are there exceptions? Sure. For example, Sin City was pretty much a direct copy of the source material. As a result, it retained pretty much exactly the same tone. In that case, the people involved WERE going for a direct copy of the source material. But that is rare as hell. The vast overwhelming majority of comic book/superhero movies are NOT direct copies. They're more like "based on the comics" in the same way that many other movies are "based on a true story". Sure, the overall concept is the same, until you need to make changes in order to make a better movie. And when that happens, you totally change whatever the hell you need to change.

Marvel movies will continue to get bigger and bigger in scope, while having less and less impact. The irony is that they have so many characters, yet every year they keep being limited more and more. Everything gets more formulaic, and stale.

DC movies will continue to suck. Truth is, aside from Batman and Superman, DC's lineup of heroes is shit.

Okay.

Name one. Just one. Name one single comic movie, that's story was not taken directly from the pages of comics. Just one.

Hint, you cant find one.

They are all taken right from the comics. Sure, there are slight variations to some details because they be literal with everything, but every single story in every single marvel and DC movie, is taken directly from stories of the comics. Every. Single. One. And that is not changing anytime soon... and again, i just want to remind you that both of these companies recognized the issue at hand and addressed it or is addressing it.

If DC took a lighter tone in their movie adaptations, they risk being too similar with the MCU movies, which at times, were too lighthearted with everyone trying to make a joke every 5 seconds. Not saying I don't enjoy them because I really did. MCU beat them to the punch so DC has to distance themselves from the notion that they are simply Marvel copycats. Fact of the matter is the majority of the cinema-goers dont know nor care about the comics nor publishers the movies are based on. They have some ideas but not the details.

I actually enjoyed MoS and BvS, I relish the change of pace and tone. Maybe i'm the minority here but if they are continuing the darker tone, then its something I'm looking forward to. I don't need to be reminded of "GUYS, JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR ABOUT THIS, THIS IS A COMIC-BASED MOVIE, OKAY?" The one thing they do need to improve is its pacing...they tend to make things a little too draggy at times which is the biggest problem i have with the newer DC movies.

I just said, basically all of them.

But hell, let's just pick one at random: Spider-Man 3 (the Sam Raimi movie with Venom and Sandman). Can you tell me the exact issues that the movie is straight-up adapting verbatim? Exact issue numbers, dude. If you're correct, one would be able to buy those issues, read that specific story arc, and see that the movie is a direct translation to film.

In nearly every single case (the exception generally being the more "mature" adaptations of stuff like Sin City, Watchmen, 300, etc) the filmmakers are taking elements and plot points of the comics and mixing and matching them as they see fit (often mashing together different plot points from comics that happened YEARS apart). The resulting movie then contains elements from different story arcs, but ends up being a completely different story that is drastically different than any of the stories published in the comics. That's absolutely standard for superhero movies: the filmmakers aren't directly translating any pre-existing story to the screen, they're building a NEW story off of pre-existing elements.

So if its basically all of them, it should be very easy to give an example yes?

Spiderman 3 is taken from Spider-Man Versus Sandman. That's the name of it. Is it "verbatim"? No, i never claimed it would be. But they don't shift extremely dramatic aspects of the story when translating, like TONE. Im not sure why this is such a big issue for you to grasp. Literally, every single example of a bad comic movie has a common theme of altering the tone of characters or story, while attempting to retain the original content story. Then, even worse, everyone including DC and Marvel recognizes this, they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to address this one issue, and you still want to argue....... With one of the companies successfully fixing these problems already and they did so by keeping the tones of the characters and stories that they were copying..... why is this so surprising to you? And why do you feel this need to argue? Youve been doing this since i said anything on the topic and the first two times you responded it was you arguing against two premises i didnt even make. So how about you stop? If you want a better response, go read the fucking links i gave of DC talking about exactly what i am.

I enjoyed those movies as well and look forward to what DC does with the next movie.

Show me a link for the actual comic. Because when I google "Spider-Man vs Sandman", it actually brings up a kids novel which was adapted FROM the movie. I'm sure you wouldn't be sloppy enough to make THAT kind of mistake, so please provide me a link to the actual comic. Is this a one-shot? A mini-series? Author? Date of publication? That's a really suspicious title, since most comic book sources end up looking like, "Sensational Spider-Man #117-#121" or something like that. That plus the fact that I can't find a Spider-Man vs Sandman comic, makes me really suspicious about your claim.

In addition, I found this website. https://superiorspidertalk.com/adapting-spider-man-spider-man-3/

Seriously, read the link. It's actually breaking down the movie and the individual issues that seemed to serve as inspiration for the movie's plot points. No mention of a "Spider-Man vs Sandman" comic, what it shows instead is the plot points coming from a whole bunch of different story arcs and then getting thrown into a blender and mashed together (which is precisely what I was saying).

So, give me a LINK to this "Spider-Man vs Sandman" comic that you're referring to.

Its SM vs SM, 3 parts i believe, could be two.

But lets not ignore what this has all come down to at this point for your argument. You started with a legit argument, had it been a proper response to something i said, but it was not. You then did it a second time. And now out of everything ive mentioned to you, the links included that show DC recognizing that exactly what ive been saying is the problem, is the problem with their movies.... you ignore this and now its this. You wanting me to sort through some old ass comics to find the exact issues to ensure that you avoid addressing the actual points made. Without even recognizing that even if this one instance was based on original material (which i dont know why you want to think this. The venom story in it is taken from the Todd McFarline series as well) it does not matter because you're not addressing the fact that i said "virtually all", now i said this because while i know which ones are based on comics, i may have forgotten one. But what? Because you've failed so much in this conversation in your attempts to prove me wrong (for some reason) you need to hang your hat on being right about something right? If you're not going to address the entire point of what youve attempting to argue against, then stop attempting to come at me at every possible angle you can think of. At this point it merely looks like you simply wanting to argue with someone and you getting shut down every time you decide to shift your argument (because you either got it wrong to begin with or you dont know)

https://www.quora.com/What-specific-comics-are-Marvel-Cinematic-Universe-Movies-based-on

The only one the guy is missing is GOG, which is because as he claims he does not read the series. If i remember correctly, its based on the Infinity War. I could be wrong though, im sure it will pop up as they all do, when you google search it.

Of the older movies, off the top of my head...

Wolverine 1 is from the weapon x sagas. 2 is from 3, 4, 5, 49, 50, 51 i believe thats all.... of wolverines 2nd series. 3 is the old man logan series.

The Xmen movies... 1 is loosly taken from days of future past and a few surrounding comics. 2 is based on god loves man kills, a more direct adaptation and the best in the series. 3 is very poorly based on the dark phoenix saga. Day of Future Past is obviously a full adaptation of DOFP. Apocalypse is loosely based on age of Apocalypse and uuhhhhhh i forget. 221 of Uncanny? First Class is loosely based on 1-4 with character parts taken from as high as 107.

Daredevil is issue 100. Elektra is DD giant size 1.

Ghost Rider 2 is spirits of vengeance, i dont know the first one though.

The F4 one's i have no idea i dont read them and never have BUT i do recognize the stories from all 3 movies and i know F4 issue 50 is the SS movie. Actually the newest one ive never seen and know nothing about.... so hey, maybe its fully original, although from what ive heard its complete shit and why i avoided it.

Hulk is 5-10. I think the rebooted Hulk is the same.

Punisher (new one) is War Zone.

As for the Netflix series, Jones, DD and LC, they all follow the earlier, major stories of each series very well.

If i think of any more or stop being lazy and look them up, ill list the rest of them. But for now i think the point has been made.

I liked Man Of Steel the best of all the current DC movies. A little long, but it kept a good pace, made sense and conveyed a good story. Completely underrated in my opinion. I wanted to like BvS. I really did, but it was just missing a little too much. I thought Ben Affleck was actually a decent batman, but he just needed to be developed. You were learning about this new batman as the movie unfolded and it seemed to rushed and too half baked before the big confrontation. Not enough vested in the character. The wonder woman cameo was good because she wasnt a major player in the film, so it fit better. The dude that played lex luthor was abysmal and just massively annoying. Hope he's done in the series. Terrible potrayal of a great villain.

@kod: Dude, my point is that even if these movies are "based on" pre-existing comic book storylines, the filmmakers change SO MUCH during translation that the resulting movies are not the same story. I'm talking HUGE changes. That is actually kind of necessary in most cases just to get the material onto the screen. They are most certainly NOT direct translations of existing stories. Even if they're loosely based on a certain story, there's almost always SOMETHING that necessitates a HUGE change. They don't have the rights to certain characters, they have to change things to fit a 2 hour format, they have to include characters that weren't in the original story so that they can sell more action figures as tie-ins to the movie, or they never planned on doing that story when they started the franchise and now the story doesn't make sense within the existing franchise without MASSIVE changes being made. This is STANDARD. They will certainly take elements from the comics as they see fit, but the primary goal is making a successful MOVIE.

Case in point, Spider-Man 3. The movie was not conceived as an adaptation of a particular story arc. It was conceived as a continuation of the themes and story arcs running through the previous Spider-Man movies. They then decided on some cool villains to use (Venom, Sandman), then they lifted elements from "classic" story arcs involving those characters and tried to mash all of those different story elements into the main story arc that was running through the previous movie. That is NOT a direct adaptation. It is a completely new story. Take Spider-Man 3 and compare it to the Todd McFarlane Venom story arc that they used for inspiration for that particular element of the movie, and it is not the same story. If they can digress that much and still make the story work, then yes, they can change the tone.

Again, if you remember, my point was that no one is saying that these movies sucked because the tone changed. They're saying that they suck because there are serious flaws in critical areas such as directing, cimenatography, acting, a coherent script, that sort of thing. AKA, things that have nothing to do with a change of tone. You countered that by saying that yes, the filmmakers technically COULD fix that stuff to account for the change of tone if they're already drastically changing the story. My stance is that they ARE already drastically changing the story to the point that it's practically a new story, so there's nothing stopping them from simply making whatever changes they need to make in order to get a movie that doesn't suck.

DC has potential but is rushing its movies. DC needs to establish its characters and its themes first and realize that while some themes such as "dark and gritty" work for some like Batman, it may not work for Superman. Make a movie that makes the character worth seeing on the big screen just as many fell for the comics while making necessary changes to make it more understandable for all audiences or more realistic (not "realistic," just avoid tights, weird origin stories, or whatever). What DC can do is avoid making its movies "safe." Introduce tension and the unsuspected. Take notes from BTAS, STAS, Mask of the Phantasm, Justice League and Justice League: Unlimited, and Young Justice. Make your movies memorable instead of making another "popcorn flick."

But what do I know?

Marvel is doing an exceptional job with some of its projects but the rest of their movies are just popcorn flicks. You see it once, don't care to see it again. Some exceptions include Guardians of the Galaxy and its TV series on Netflix are quite good such as Luke Cage. It's surprising to see Marvel have a consistent rate of decent films and an all-star cast that works with the roles they're assigned. Some movies take risks such as Winter Soldier.

Marvel is doing a solid job. They know their formula and know how to make movies. Could they take more chances as in kill some characters off? Well, that might not be good for marketing. I don't know.